| ▲ | palata a day ago |
| I agree with your points, except this: > thanks to the Steam Deck [...] but I would be reluctant to call that Linux Desktop anymore than I would call Android an uptick for Linux. The Steam Deck very much runs Linux Desktop. Android runs the Linux kernel, but everything else is different. SteamOS is a Linux distribution based on Arch. If you run your Steam Deck in "desktop mode", it is very much a Linux Desktop (with a read-only system and A/B updates etc, but still). |
|
| ▲ | zozbot234 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Android systems don't even run the linux kernel in any real sense, pretty much every downstream kernel has millions of lines of patched code that will never make it upstream in their current form. Of course, that's no different from mostly any other "Linux" embedded device, but it's very different indeed from what's standard on desktop systems. |
| |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I would still count it as the Linux kernel. They don't change the syscall API, it's really mostly at the BSP level, right? Said differently: if manufacturers cared to mainstream their changes, they could. And we would all be better for it. | | |
| ▲ | fsflover a day ago | parent [-] | | > I would still count it as the Linux kernel. This may be technically true, except it has no single meaningful implication, like no Linux software works there. | | |
| ▲ | jchw a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That's not even true. You can use typical Linux software inside of a chroot, like with Termux. | | |
| ▲ | conradev a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Yep, and in the reverse, you don't need a separate kernel to run Android software on Linux: https://waydro.id | | | |
| ▲ | longfingers a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Whether your virtual container is lightweight, heavyweight or from the cloud doesn't really change anything from a regular user's perspective. You aren't installing software in the main environment you are looking at, running a desktop on, etc. | | |
| ▲ | jchw a day ago | parent [-] | | Recall the post above mine: > > I would still count it as the Linux kernel. > This may be technically true, except it has no single meaningful implication, like no Linux software works there. Termux is notable is because you in fact don't need a virtual machine at all, or even a proper container. Even the "chroot" aspect is basically just to create a facade to make software work with less effort; it's not literally needed. And you can indeed run typical graphical Linux software as long as you have a compatible display server; Termux offers an X server as an add-on. This doesn't mean that Android is the same as desktop Linux, but that's not the point here. The point is that Android runs the Linux kernel, and not just in name only. You actually can make use of the Linux aspect of Android, which many of us do. It's possible that Google will lock down Android further in the future and make the host Linux environment less usable for stock Linux apps, but today you can run quite a lot of typical CLI and even desktop Linux software directly in Android with minimal fuss. Even if it's a little cumbersome, it's quite useful in a pinch. I'd argue whether you can readily install software to the Linux host environment is also neither here nor there. For an immutable abroot setup like SteamOS, you can't really install directly to the host environment, but in my mind that does not make it any less "desktop Linux" or Linux kernel based. |
|
| |
| ▲ | MatthewPhillips a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think this really undervalues what Linux provides. The Android software is Linux software. | | |
| ▲ | fsflover a day ago | parent [-] | | It's completely incompatible, so in practice it's a different OS. Doesn't mean it's not valuable. | | |
| ▲ | jraph a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You are talking about the OS while the person you are discussing with is speaking about the kernel. The Linux kernel has its own merits outside standard Linux userspace. I agree, saying that the fact standard Linux distros and Android share the same kernel has no single meaningful implication really undervalues the Linux kernel. I also agree that it's important to keep in mind the two OSes are mostly incompatible. The two OSes sharing the kernel have practical implications, including (theoretically) seeing improvements coming from Android dev in the kernel that can benefit standard linux distros, and things like Termux or Waydroid. | | |
| ▲ | ravenstine a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Compiling the mainline Linux kernel myself really taught me that the kernel does way more than people give it credit for. Sure, it can be debated as to whether two distributions of Linux can really be considered the same OS, but acting like the kernel is a relatively minor detail comes off to me as ignorant. | |
| ▲ | philistine a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You’re keeping a discussion on technical reasoning for why Android and Desktop Linux are separated in a list like that, but the reason is not technical. It’s wholly for convenience. We want to know the performance of Desktop Linux separate from Android. Whether or not they are a different OS or not is irrelevant. | | |
| ▲ | jraph 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > We want to know the performance of Desktop Linux separate from Android ... Because they are a different OS. > You’re keeping a discussion on technical reasoning for why Android and Desktop Linux are separated in a list like that Mind you, my motivation to have them separated aren't that technical. Actually, I'd be more interested in the philosophical / social aspects of the question. That doesn't mean the technical aspects aren't interesting and this subthread is technical, and I've been snipped by the technical inaccuracies present there. In a way, the philosophical discussion also has less risk of being clouded by technical inaccuracies too, and more chance of succeeding in the technicalities are sorted out, especially in presence of people who know the technical details. You are free to spark a nontechnical discussion in which you motivate why, technical details aside, we should be interested in having the two separated. Please do! Actually, I did this a bit there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44580682#44583693 |
| |
| ▲ | fsflover a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | So when somebody says "Linux reaches X market share", are they talking about the kernel? Why does it even matter how much the kernel is used? Would you count WSL? | | |
| ▲ | jraph a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure why you are asking me all this, this is beside my points. > So I reject the link here. > when somebody says "Linux reaches X market share", are they talking about the kernel? Likely not. > Why does it even matter how much the kernel is used? Why not? Depends what's your concern. > Would you count WSL? Depends what you want to evaluate. | | |
| ▲ | fsflover a day ago | parent [-] | | > Depends what you want to evaluate. This is exactly my question. You said the discussion's about the kernel. Why do you want to evaluate its usage? Which conclusions are you going to draw? Because when talking about the OS, you can conclude that Windows and MacOS start falling behind the free software. | | |
| ▲ | jraph a day ago | parent [-] | | > Why do you want to evaluate its usage? I never implied this. This subthread is about countering your affirmation that Android being based on the linux kernel has no single meaningful implication. It's not anymore about evaluating usage and counting stuff. This all started with a commenter writing "Android systems don't even run the linux kernel in any real sense", which is wrong, or at least highly misleading and confusing (I do agree with this commenter about the fact that we are talking about forks that don't upstream their shit, which does have severe implications). You could say that Android systems usually don't run mainline Linux kernel. > you can conclude that Windows and MacOS start falling behind the free software. I wish :-) And I wouldn't generally include Android in the free software family, few people run Replicant or some Android flavor without the Google services, let alone without proprietary blobs. (I would count blob-free Android) |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | vkazanov a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In practice Linux is a family of different OSes. Sometimes POSIX-centric, sometimes not. What do you even count as "an OS"? Linux + gnu userland + Gnome? Or is it KDE? Embedded Linux? Does ChromeOS count? LG's WebOS? | | |
| ▲ | oblio a day ago | parent [-] | | Desktop Linux has a clear scope, and we all know. We can act like we don't, but we do. Can I install LibreOffice on Android? Gnome, KDE, Xfce? Which percentage of packages in the Debian repos can I use on Android? | | |
| ▲ | vkazanov a day ago | parent [-] | | Linux is a kernel, that's it. There is an organisation maintaining it, and also the trademark. There is also a major family of OSes building on the kernel + gnu userspace, which you probably call "desktop linux". In my house there are dozens of devices running linux the kernel: routers, a tv set, washing machines, NAS, printers, etc. Some have the full gnu posix-like stack, others are very barebones. Then, there's is a bunch of android devices running the kernel as well. What's wrong with all of these? At what point should i draw a line? | | |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent [-] | | To me, Desktop Linux is the Linux I run on my work computer: the one that has a screen, a keyboard and a mouse. It is based on Linux (obviously), the GNU userland to some extent, and then it has a graphical environment (usually based on Xorg or Wayland). This is different from embedded Linux or Linux on a server. And this is different from Linux-the-kernel (which runs on Android). | | |
| ▲ | sophacles a day ago | parent | next [-] | | What if I run linux + gnu + gnome over rdp on VM a server in a rack somewhere that has no screen keyboard and mouse on it? Am i using desktop linux or not? What if that same VM also is running nginx and serving up web content? What if I have a pc with a keyboard and monitor sitting literally on my desktop, and it's running linux + gnu but no graphical environment, and I use it for coding (it has music playing when I do this, and i sometime check email or github issues, etc via cli) - yes I've done this, even recently to reduce distractions... some days GUIs are bad for my adhd. Is that a desktop linux? If not, why? What's different about this than doing basically the same thing, but also having a browser open when it's surrounded by a GUI? | | |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent [-] | | I feel like you're overthinking it. It's not that one can get a badge saying "powered by Desktop Linux". It's a rough categorisation based on the use case: * Embedded Linux is what you expect to see on a "small" device that usually doesn't have a graphical environment (it may have a small screen showing a temperature). * A Linux server is what you expect to see in racks, serving stuff over the Internet. A homeserver could be that, too. * Linux on mobile is what you would put on your phone. * Desktop Linux is what you would put on your working computer, the one you interact with "physically". Of course, you can run a server on your personal laptop, and you could run a "Desktop" graphical environment on a mobile phone. But that's beside the point. And of course, you can work on a Linux without a graphical environment. |
| |
| ▲ | vkazanov a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, you came up with a rather vague definition. Xorg OR wayland. Gtk or qt? Which set of tools do you expect to be available? All of that is just too nebulous. Linux is something that runs the kernel, that's about it. I mean, I've been using linux for all of my life, servers, at home, for work, embedded dev, corporate environment, as a manager and as a dev, etc. What I see is that linux as already everywhere. Desktop space is the only OS market where non-linux OSes are in the majority, and maybe this is why people are so excited about these pointless numbers. | | |
| ▲ | jraph a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Desktop Linux is difficult to define exactly, but the idea has merits. Something that's not proprietary, and that's not incredibly closed / locked / controlled by a monopolist like Android or Chrome OS. > maybe this is why people are so excited about these pointless numbers. I'd be excited by numbers showing an increase free software use, including the OS, first and foremost. For what I personally care, I'd be happy to drop the Linux kernel requirement and extend the scope to Desktop BSDs and other open source desktop OS as well. People being trapped in closed OSes that happen to be based on a Linux kernel is of limited comfort anyway, actually. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hagbard_c a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Try Termux and you'll be surprised how much 'Linux' software runs fine on Android, this includes things made to run under X11 etc. | | |
| ▲ | thesuperbigfrog a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Termux turns my Android phone into a programmable pocket computer. https://termux.dev/en/ Please give it a try and if you find it useful, donate. | |
| ▲ | fsflover a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://github.com/termux-play-store/ | | |
| ▲ | jraph a day ago | parent [-] | | What's your point? This mess is caused by Google policies, not technical considerations. You can still install Termux from F-Droid. We can argue about Android being a horrible OS for all sorts of reasons but that's a separate discussion. | | |
| ▲ | jauntywundrkind a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Almost every Android version imposes new major restrictions when it comes to security requirements, and specifically the Android 10 version update was dramatic for Termux usage, as it disallowed executing downloaded files directly. > The Termux app avoided that by using a targetSdkVersion of Android 9, declaring that it was not compatible with the Android 10 requirements. Android level 9 is from Android 2 Gingerbread (2010!!). https://apilevels.com/ For now it's not a huge barrier to Termux running. We can go run Android 2 stuff today, & maybe Android will forever be backwards compatible. It does mean that Termux can't build a top or use any new Android features. Termux is glued to a truly ancient version of Android, because Android became inhospitable to basic Linux userland use cases. Seems its mostly about being unable to run downloaded code, which feels admittedly like very much "just a technicality", but boy oh boy has that technicality kept Android from expanding outside of its own bespoke userland. | | |
| ▲ | jraph a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > > The Termux app avoided that by using a targetSdkVersion of Android 9, declaring that it was not compatible with the Android 10 requirements. > Android level 9 is from Android 2 Gingerbread (2010!!). https://apilevels.com/ Wait, no, Termux is not stuck at Gingerbread, it's stuck at Android 9 (Pie). Agree with the rest though. Android is a sinking ship, not only the Termux issue, but the increasing number of basic apps and features that are proprietary and not part of AOSP. I hope we'll be able to be caught by Linux Mobile or something like this in time. | | |
| ▲ | jauntywundrkind a day ago | parent [-] | | Apologies! I originally posted Android 9 Pie (2018), but had doubt & switched to the SDK version. My mistake!! The AI age where the AI needs to be able to peak into all the apps will hopefully create a new API / MCP age, new machine-to-machine work. I'm not sure how much of what Google is doing today is proprietary, adding hooks into all their apps and creating some means for Gemini to access that all, and how much is paved road & available for others. Very curious to know more. |
| |
| ▲ | zozbot234 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Right, Android target levels are so different in how they behave towards applications that they're practically best treated as distinct OS's to begin with. There's really no such thing as a unified Android or iOS, unlike Windows or desktop Linux where even a program from the mid-1990s will run unmodified in the latest version of the OS. | | |
| ▲ | jraph a day ago | parent [-] | | > Android target levels are so different in how they behave towards applications that they're practically best treated as distinct OS's to begin with You can run applications running different target levels side by side though > desktop Linux where even a program from the mid-1990s will run unmodified in the latest version of the OS mhm... I wish but that's not so true for Linux. Your old program will likely be missing some dynamic library or be incompatible with your current libc. Desktop Linux userspace is awfully unstable, compatibility is broken left and right, basically no one cares except the Linux kernel itself. There's a reason people jokingly say that win32, through wine, is the most stable Linux API. If you still have the source code of your program (and the linux ecosystem is full of free software so that's likely), you can always recompile but you'll probably need to edit the code so it's compatible with the current versions of libraries). I've heard macOS is not great at this neither. |
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Termux is glued to a truly ancient version of Android, because Android became inhospitable to basic Linux userland use cases. No, this only a problem with Termux's approach of trying to put all apps into a single app. One Linux app should correspond to one Android app. This also makes it so that permissions you grant to the app is not to all of termux, but to a specific app. | | |
| ▲ | jraph a day ago | parent [-] | | > trying to put all apps into a single app That's not exactly what it does, it dynamically downloads the programs using apt-get. I get the security benefits of preventing the execution of data stuff, but building one Android app for each binary is difficult to work with. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit a day ago | parent [-] | | >it dynamically downloads the programs using apt-get. And then runs them as the Termux app. I didn't mean to imply that it put all of the apps into itself at build time. >Android app for each binary is difficult to work with. You could group multiple binaries that belong to a single conceptual app into a single android app. What do you think would make it difficult to work with? I think most of it could be automated away. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 a day ago | parent [-] | | The principled way of doing this (while coping with the new post-Pie restrictions) would be to build a new "updated" .apk on-device with a new /usr/bin/ equivalent, then have the user explicitly "install" it and relaunch Termux. It would work no different than any live-CD install, or for that matter any other kind of "immutable" OS. | | |
| ▲ | jraph a day ago | parent | next [-] | | But then, everything runs under the same Termux user app again, just with extra cumbersome steps. And I'm not sure it's possible to do this safely, you need the APK to be signed, and the only way to do this would be to share the private key. And likely to have a good chunk of the Android SDK bundled with Termux. A version that runs on Android anyway. Not sure it would fly with Google's Play Store policies. to your parent: > And then runs them as the Termux app. I didn't mean to imply that it put all of the apps into itself at build time. ok, got you | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes but you could just have a custom private key that's generated by a separate "apk builder" app and stored on-device. |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fsflover a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Touché. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No software compiled for arm will run on x86. No software depending on Qt will run without Qt, even if you have GTK. Doesn't mean they don't run the same kernel, does it? | | |
| ▲ | fsflover a day ago | parent [-] | | You can recompile software for a different architecture relatively easily. You can't easily rewrite GNU/Linux software to run on Android. | | |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent [-] | | And you can't easily rewrite Qt software to use GTK. Still they both run on Linux. | | |
| ▲ | msgodel a day ago | parent [-] | | You probably could if Android weren't intentionally constrained by Google to prevent it. That's what fsflover is trying to point out: Android is more of a television firmware than an OS and counting it like a PC OS makes very little sense because you can't use it like one. EDIT: I think you still don't understand. It doesn't matter what hardware Android runs on it's written to be appliance firmware. Even if you put it on a laptop it just turns the laptop into what is essentially a television. | | |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent [-] | | So I was saying that Android runs the Linux kernel, period. But now that you say it, Android is very much a full OS. It's not a Linux Desktop, but it is a full OS. And televisions running Android are called "smart TVs", precisely because they run a full OS instead of a minimal firmware like they used to. Google is working on bringing Android to the Desktop, and Samsung already does it. As in: you plug your smartphone into a docking station and it is suddenly a Desktop computer. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | MYEUHD a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Checkout https://postmarketos.org
Those vendor provided kernel trees let you run a real Linux distribution on your phone. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 a day ago | parent [-] | | PostmarketOS doesn't use downstream kernel trees because those are useless for anything that's not AOSP-based (unless you use terrible hacks like libhybris) and are often not upgradable to newer versions. They rely on "close-to-mainline" kernels that are much closer to real Linux. |
| |
| ▲ | udev4096 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is the reason I hate the recent surge in linux desktop users. People jumping in without allocating enough time to get familiar with the ecosystem | |
| ▲ | assbuttbuttass a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can run Linux software on Android via termux, or the amazing UserLAnd app even lets you install an entire distro userland with several choices (Debian, Arch, etc) | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | cherryteastain a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Android is Linux Android is not GNU/Linux. Article talks about GNU/Linux clearly. There is a point to the whole "I'd like to interject for a moment..." copypasta and Android's situation is the clearest illustration of it. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway0665 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The article talks about browsers that use Linux in the user agent. This includes Alpine Linux - which is not GNU/Linux. It also splits out Chrome OS which is pretty much GNU/Linux. | | |
| ▲ | blueflow a day ago | parent [-] | | Alpine and GNU/Linux are Posix, while Android is not. | | |
| ▲ | TheDong a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't think Posix is very relevant to what is or isn't linux. macOS is more posix than NixOS, but everyone knows NixOS is a real linux distro, and macOS is not one. | | |
| ▲ | blueflow a day ago | parent [-] | | Me neither! I was suggesting to use "Posix" instead of "Linux" because it properly separates GNU/Linux or other Linuxes from Android. Posix is what Android isn't but what MacOS is. What people erroneously try to call "Linux" because they don't have a better word. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Article talks about GNU/Linux clearly. There are Linux distributions that don't use the GNU userland. Should we start being pedantic about that? And say Busybox/Linux or MyCustomThingy/Linux etc? And actually, were you talking about GNU/Linux/Xorg, or GNU/Linux/Wayland? Can I also ask people to mention which libc they use? Alpine is OpenRC/Busybox/musl/Linux, which is not systemd/GNU/glibc/Linux. So yeah... Desktop Linux is not worse a way to describe an OS than GNU/Linux. | |
| ▲ | jraph a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > There is a point to the whole "I'd like to interject for a moment..." copypasta and Android's situation is the clearest illustration of it. Well… :-) With you in spirit, but to add to the mess, one could argue Alpine (and Postmarket OS) is a standard Linux distro, but non GNU. "GNU/" cannot be used for clarifying things anymore. |
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | This has been repeated for so long that in the meantime enough of the changes have been upstreamed such that Android has been able to run with the upstream kernel since 6 years ago. |
|
|
| ▲ | kube-system a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The Steam Deck very much runs Linux Desktop. Android runs the Linux kernel, but everything else is different. Linux is a kernel. |
| |
| ▲ | jraph a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Seeing how the Linux name is used in practice, it's useful to clarify. | |
| ▲ | giancarlostoro a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "IT'S GNU/LINUX!" ~ rms | |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Which is exactly why people here talk about "Linux Desktop". Linux is a kernel, Linux Desktop is some flavour of a full OS made to run on a PC, as opposed to e.g. embedded Linux or a Linux server. Not sure what your point is? | | |
| ▲ | anthk a day ago | parent | next [-] | | There are no 'Linux desktops'. | |
| ▲ | tuna74 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, but ChromeOS is just as much "Desktop Linux" as Fedora Workstation. | | |
| ▲ | danieldk a day ago | parent [-] | | I think that's pretty pedantic. When most people here say 'Linux Desktop', they mean the Linux kernel, GNU(-ish) userland, Wayland/X11, and some desktop like GNOME, KDE or Mate. Though, I guess outside tech circles, people will just talk about Linux as the whole desktop OS. E.g. our municipality was promoting installing a Linux distribution to save Windows laptops after the Windows 10 apocalypse, and they just call it Linux. Even Wikipedia says: Linux (/ˈlɪnʊks/ LIN-uuks[15]) 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. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx a day ago | parent | next [-] | | But with respect to "Linux on the Desktop" in the context of marketshare, the interest is in seeing how far Linux has gone, not how far software running on Linux has gone. The only reason "ChromeOS" isn't considered Linux in this dataset is because Chrome has a flag that removes Linux from the user-agent on certain systems. If we were talking about Linux on the desktop casually, or were compiling a dataset through some other means where the kernel is a known quantity, we'd most certainly include said systems. | |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > When most people here say 'Linux Desktop', they mean the Linux kernel, GNU(-ish) userland, Wayland/X11, and some desktop like GNOME, KDE or Mate. This. It actually surprises me that it's apparently not entirely clear for everybody. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sneak a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A distinction without a difference. The point of this subthread is that the term Linux is overloaded to mean two things: a kernel and also an OS that has certain assumptions (usually glibc and some unix userspace stuff). The point being that “Linux Desktop” means something more than “runs the Linux kernel”. | | | |
| ▲ | paulddraper 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So anyone saying "the Windows operating system" is doing wrong? | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Windows is/was actually a classification of a graphical OS based on a windows-metaphor. What you are talking about is probably MS Windows. | | |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | mcv a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Steam Deck is absolutely a full blown Linux. But it's not a desktop. It's a handheld. Well, unless you hook a screen and keyboard to it, I suppose. No idea how many people do that. But if you do that, phones and tablets also become desktops. |
| |
| ▲ | palata 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > unless you hook a screen and keyboard to it, I suppose. You can run Steam Deck in "Desktop mode" without hooking a screen and keyboard to it, and it will be running a full Desktop Linux environment. If I plug a screen and keyboard to my Android, it's still a mobile OS (e.g. made to run with a touch screen). Samsung has apparently "dex" and Google is working on convergence as well, but this is not yet a thing. I'm looking forward to being able to hook a screen and keyboard to an Android phone and have it behave like a Desktop Android, though :-). | |
| ▲ | throwawayk7h a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I attach screen + keyboard to it often. It has an official dock to facilitate this. In my mind, it's a device that can function as both desktop and hand-held. | |
| ▲ | whatevaa 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is very visible that Desktop mode is not primary function of Steam Deck, though. Some weird behavior here and there, reboot always goes into gaming mode and so on. It's a gaming handheld first, desktop second. | |
| ▲ | anon7000 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, a keyboard on iPad is way less powerful than a keyboard on steam deck. The steam deck can plug into a monitor and runs Plasma out of the box, which is a full blown desktop environment |
|
|
| ▲ | koolala a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Typing this from my Steam Deck, its the best Linux desktop I've ever had. It's awesome to have my PC also be a handheld when laying in bed. I hope the Deckard has M+KB support too. |
|
| ▲ | nerdjon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Admittedly yeah SteamOS does walk that line, and I guess technically given that I think these numbers are based on browser data it would only be capturing the people that actually go into desktop mode (maybe?). But, I think there is a conversation around this to ask how many of the people using a Steam Deck actually go into desktop mode or care that it is Linux (or even understand that it is Linux) vs would switch to a Windows version if it worked as well. |
| |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Even in the "normal mode", I would argue that it is still Linux Desktop. A Linux Desktop init system, with a Linux Desktop userspace, with a Linux Desktop libc, with the Linux Desktop security model, a Linux Desktop package manager, a Linux Desktop compositor (it uses something based on Wayland, right?), etc. If you open a terminal (or SSH into it), you're on Linux. It's very, very different on Android. > how many of the people using a Steam Deck [...] care that it is Linux Probably most don't. But that's a goal. If corporate employees could use a Linux Desktop without caring that it is Linux, it would mean that the corporation can move to Linux, and that would be big. | | |
| ▲ | nialv7 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I think it might be good to stand back a bit and think through what we are actually excited for. Because: 1. if someone uses Linux Desktop without caring about that it is Linux, why is that different from them using Windows?
2. why do we say SteamOS count as Linux Desktop but Android doesn't? is it really because how much of it is "Linux"? For me, I think what matters to me is who has control over it. SteamOS is based on Arch, so the community has a say over where it will go, and Valve will have to work with the community. Android/Windows are fully controlled Google/Microsoft, doesn't matter that Android is Open Source. | | |
| ▲ | vladvasiliu a day ago | parent | next [-] | | As a user, what usually matters to me is what software I'm able to run on it. So even if people don't actually care about the OS itself, they will care that X runs on it but Y doesn't, which, given enough users, may push X to support that OS. I actually daily drive Linux (Arch) because Windows is a PITA I'm not willing to put up with. But there are things I use which still don't run on Linux (Photoshop and Lightroom), so I'm actually thinking of getting a Mac again instead of having a second PC / dual boot, even though I know that can also be irritating (though less so than Windows). "Who controls the OS" isn't that important to me. What matters is that it gets out of my way and lets me do what I want to do with as little friction as possible. I know Linux being free means I can go and hack on it however I like. But I also have to contend with reality: I can't reasonably think that I (personnally) am going to hack on the kernel or on some desktop environment in any meaningful measure, so I still have to put up with whatever other people figure is best. But if there are enough people like me, including those who don't actually care about what OS they're running, maybe the apps I want to run will adopt Linux. But that only matters because, as it turns out, it's the OS which I find the less irritating to use. If tomorrow Windows 12 finally became sane, I'd switch in a heartbeat. I'm not married to Linux. | |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If someone runs Linux Desktop without caring that it is Linux, it still means that they use software that runs on Linux. Say if governments move to some Linux distro, they will need an office suite, and they may pay for its development. If someone runs SteamOS, it means that they play games on Linux. So it becomes interesting for game devs to test for Linux. And then if someone runs SteamOS, instead of a dual boot with Windows maybe they just go to the Desktop mode. Which means that instead of Microsoft Office, they use something that runs on Linux, etc. This is good for the Linux ecosystem. And the reason I like the Linux ecosystem is because, as you say, it's not fully controlled by TooBigTech. | | |
| ▲ | fragmede a day ago | parent [-] | | The alternative to Microsoft Word isn't LibreOffice Writer, it's Google Docs, which is very much controlled by a big tech company. | | |
| ▲ | palata 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | If a government chooses to move away from Microsoft, I hope it's not to get closer to Google. And there are alternatives other than LibreOffice and Google Docs. |
|
| |
| ▲ | schmorptron a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'd start that conversation from another perspective. If someone uses linux, not caring that it's not windows, then that's a milestone. |
| |
| ▲ | nerdjon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is an interesting distinction, unlike Android I do admit that SteamOS is obviously contributing to Linux Desktop market share. I just think it is a complicated situation. From my understanding Xbox is running a version of Windows on their consoles (not talking about the new handhelds) tailor made for Xbox. But I would not call that adding to the Windows marketshare. iOS and iPadOS were started with versions of OSX and then modified (and clearly share some pieces) but we would not call either of those as contributing to Mac's marketshare. Obviously yes neither of those let you go into the traditional Mac or Windows desktop unlike SteamOS. But how the users perceive it is still important. > Probably most don't. But that's a goal. If corporate employees could use a Linux Desktop without caring that it is Linux, it would mean that the corporation can move to Linux, and that would be big. The problem is this works the other way also. If most users of the Steam Deck don't care or really know that it is Linux there is not much getting in the way of Microsoft coming in with their new handheld/OS and eating up that market if they can get the OS to perform as well. Put another way, if Valve decided (not saying they would, just asking a hypothetical) to either write their own OS or switch the underlying OS to Windows but kept the look of SteamOS as it behaved now and performance was the same. Would most users of the Steam Deck know or care? Personally I think for claims about the "linux desktop" to really matter, there has to be a conscious desire and care that it is Linux or it could disappear. | | |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent [-] | | > I do admit that SteamOS is obviously contributing to Linux Desktop market share. I just think it is a complicated situation. Agreed. And IMO, the thing is that you can benefit from the work made on SteamOS on any Linux Desktop. By making most games run on SteamOS, Valve contributed to make Gentoo a better platform for gaming. > If most users of the Steam Deck don't care or really know that it is Linux there is not much getting in the way of Microsoft coming in with their new handheld/OS and eating up that market if they can get the OS to perform as well. Sure. But what I see is really the other side: if SteamOS is relevant, then game devs will have an incentive to support SteamOS, which gives the opportunity for gamers to move to SteamOS. Now they are on Linux, so they can start using software that runs on Linux. |
| |
| ▲ | necovek a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I would agree on most points regarding SteamOS except for package manager: there are really two on the system — base one and Steam itself. Users generally only care about the latter. | | |
| ▲ | palata a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Linux Desktop routinely has multiple package managers (for the better or worse): be it flatpak, pip, npm, nix... but it's still Linux Desktop. Just like you don't need to have the same libc to be a Linux Desktop. | |
| ▲ | nemomarx a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At least some of the dedicated ones also want to run epic games or others through heroic, but that's only a little more Linux on top of steam yeah | |
| ▲ | cma a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think it is fixed now, but for a while you couldn't even use the touchpads on the desktop without steam running. |
| |
| ▲ | tuna74 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is no "Desktop Linux init system" etc. There are init systems built for/on Linux. |
| |
| ▲ | happymellon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > how many of the people using a Steam Deck actually go into desktop mode or care that it is Linux How many Windows users care that it is Windows? They just want to click on the Internet icon. | |
| ▲ | acdha a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One way to think about it is what APIs application developers are using. If most of the code running on a Steam Deck is Windows code running under a compatibility layer, it probably doesn’t help the larger Linux community in the same way that, say, iOS popularity has helped ensure that many libraries have excellent macOS support. | |
| ▲ | anonymous_sorry a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > But, I think there is a conversation around this to ask how many of the people using a Steam Deck actually go into desktop mode or care that it is Linux If Linux adoption is to increase significantly (and I guess I'm of the opinion that would be a positive thing), then at some point that can only be done by acquiring users who don't care particularly deeply or understand much about their OS. That is, the vast majority of people. And that's probably not going to happen by converting that demographic to true believers. Some of those people might decide they want to dig deeper later, and that's great. Most won't and that's fine too. It would be a bit asymmetrical to restrict the definition of "Linux user" to folk who really care what Linux is or know their way around coreutils. | |
| ▲ | stackbutterflow a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Think about it from a brand perspective. If you were microsoft and some flavor of windows were running on people's phone and game station, would you claim this market share? I'm sure they would. |
|
|
| ▲ | BolexNOLA a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Totally agree. It's what finally got me to commit to a linux machine for my recent desktop build! |
|
| ▲ | dartharva a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What even is "Linux Desktop" and why does Android not qualify as one? Many Android tablets (especially those with Samsung Dex) can certainly double up as desktops if its users were so willing, at least a lot more so than the Steam Deck. |
| |
| ▲ | DanOpcode a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Linux Desktop is something else. When Adobe considers if it's worth to port Photoshop to run on the Linux Desktop they don't include the market share of Android devices in that calculation. It's two completely different markets: desktop Linux apps and Android apps. | |
| ▲ | rstuart4133 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > What even is "Linux Desktop" and why does Android not qualify as one? A desktop is a computer that sits on your desk, as opposed to being held in your hand. In concrete terms, you can install Android Firefox on ChromeOS, and it runs fine. But it is near unusable because it turns out how people interact with desktops is very different to how people interact with phones. Also, desktop window managers tend to look like a protocol, rather than a library. That because every language can speak a protocol, but a library is written in one language and if you are lucky, someone many have provided bindings to that library to the language you are using. Android's display is effectively a Java library. If you want to talk to it from C or Python, you have to FFI to Java, which sucks from a number of perspectives. It's not how you would implement a general purpose desktop environment, and I've never met anyone who considers it to be one. That lack of flexibility shows up in a number of other ways. For example it's not difficult to implement an phone OS interface using XWindows or Wayland. Neither particularly care what window manager is running on top of them them. The reverse isn't true. You can't provide a the multi-window desktop environment on Android as it stands. None of this is true for ChromeOS. It uses Wayland under the hood, and so you can install and run Debian GUI apps on it. In fact I do that, and it mostly works as you would expect. Thus I consider ChromeOS to be true Linux Desktop environment, and it should be counted as one. It isn't mind you - but I think should be. Google seems to be in the process of replacing ChromeOS with Android, and as part of that process ChromeOS's ability to run Linux desktop apps is being ported to Android. If and when that happens, then I'd consider Android to be Linux desktop too. | | |
| ▲ | dartharva 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sounds like a ton of arbitrary gatekeeping. If it is a computer I can use on my desk, it is a desktop to me. Why should a user bother about what window manager or whatever is being used when he gets to use the computer as he wants? I still fail to see why Android can't be counted as among those plug-and-play immutable Linux distros. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | scarface_74 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Market share only matters to geeks and commercial software vendors when deciding the total addressable market. A “Linux desktop” that is connected to a TV used to play games is not part of the market they care about. |
|
| ▲ | jorvi a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You are being obtuse. 99% of Steam Deck users won't ever use the desktop mode except for maybe setting up emulation or Discord. In general, that makes Steam Deck users no more Linux users than people that use Android. |
| |
| ▲ | palata 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Where does that 99% number come from? The very reason why I bought a Steam Deck is because it is both a handheld and a Linux Desktop. | | |
| ▲ | LoveMortuus 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | While I don't have data to support the number, I would say that it's a pretty safe bet to say that majority of Steam Deck owners do not use the desktop mode on regular basis, they might check out what it is, but the majority probably stays in the game mode. Regarding your point, do realise that just by being a NH reader, you're in the 1%, not to mention all the other delineations that are commonly attributed to the HN crowd. We are not the majority. |
| |
| ▲ | bigyabai a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Android users are Linux users. So are Nintendo Switch users, the whole "can Linux game/be used for mobile" question is already answered. | | |
| ▲ | jorvi a day ago | parent | next [-] | | They aren't. Or not in the sense that it matters for traditional Linux desktop users, which is pretty much the only reason the metric gets brought up. Following your logic, people using the old TiVo setop boxes were also Linux users. Active Linux desktop adoption rates matter because it means companies will put money into ensuring their product works well on it. 1Password or Telegram is not going to meaningfully care about Steam Deck users. Or Android users vis a vis the Linux desktop client, because Android can't readily run Linux GUI applications :) It's honestly kind of nuts no one here is getting that. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai a day ago | parent [-] | | It really doesn't matter, you're again conflating the "kernel" and "desktop" distinction that's important here. It's like saying that XNU isn't being used by gamers - in practice you're correct, but the kernel is used to run millions of iPhone games. It doesn't matter for the adoption of macOS as a gaming platform, but the kernel is used for it. What matters, to me as a Linux user on the desktop, is that Nintendo and Google simply follow the license. I don't want them contributing patches to GNOME or Firefox, I want them downstream testing the kernel and contributing patches back for me to benefit from. And I do! My Switch Pro controller has official Linux support because of Nintendo. My day-to-day life on the desktop is improved by both company's contributions. The idea that Nintendo or Google are neglecting their duty because Photoshop doesn't run on Linux is a facetious argument. It might be a major issue for you, but clearly millions of Linux users are perfectly happy without those trappings. > Or Android users vis a vis the Linux desktop client, because Android can't readily run Linux GUI applications :) A travesty for Android's adoption metrics, one can only imagine. Thankfully for Linux users, the inverse is not so true: https://waydro.id/ | | |
| ▲ | jorvi 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It really doesn't matter, you're again conflating the "kernel" and "desktop" distinction that's important here Right, under a post that says "Linux reaches 5% desktop market share". to which I will just point to my earlier remark: bringing up that stat only matters if you actually use desktop Linux and want the marketshare to increase so Photoshop or Affinity Photo will be released and supported on Linux. Steam Deck users spend the overwhelming majority of time in Game Mode / Big Picture. They care not for the Linux desktop experience, for they don't actively use it. If they don't actively use it, companies won't care about improving it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Klonoar a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Errr, isn’t the Switch BSD based? Or am I confusing it with the PS5? | | |
| ▲ | dole 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Switch’s network stack and some drivers are FreeBSD based, but that’s about it |
|
| |
| ▲ | BolexNOLA 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You would be correct if steam deck users were in line with the average computer user, but they definitely skew more towards the tech savvy crowd - the crowd that would be interested in desktop/emulation. Part of this is in order to use a steam deck, unless you want to be very limited, you kind of have to be a little more tech savvy. I love my deck, but it is definitely not plug and play/turn key like a switch is for instance. Hell until a year or so ago swapping between gaming and desktop mode resulted in a total crash like 30% of the time. It still doesn’t dock and undock seamlessly, you get all kinds of wild behavior with standard TVs still, and if you’re off your home network and it tries to update it can still lock you out. It’s not as bad as it used to be, but it’s still a distinct possibility. I love it and frankly the machine is a marvel, especially at its price point. But I still struggle to recommend it to people. |
|
|
| ▲ | paulcole a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If your belief is that Steam Deck is Linux Desktop then you need to count Switch/PS5/Xbox as desktops as well and take those into account with the OS percentages. |
| |
| ▲ | IsTom a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Steam Deck has (accessible in menu by default) desktop mode that is just KDE with desktop icons and everything. | | |
| ▲ | MostlyStable a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think his point was that it's not linux but rather that it's not a desktop, and if it counts as a desktop, then so do the rest of the gaming consoles runnining non-linux, which probably didn't get counted so the 5% would be lower. | | |
| ▲ | samrus a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This is wrong. A steamdeck in desktop mode is exactly a desktop. You can write and execute code on it the exact same way you do on your laptop You cant do that on mobile devices or other handhelds | | |
| ▲ | MostlyStable a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes, you can, and yes, among the group of people represented on HN, I have no doubt that a fair number do use it this way.....but how typical is that? How often does the average steam deck owner use it as a desktop? How often does the average user leave the steam launcher? How often does the average user think of it as anything other than a gaming console? If all you care about is some very technical sense of "how many linux desktop environments are installed in the world", then none of these questions matter. But if the reason one is interested in the "Linux Desktop market share" is some level of interest in how people are using desktop computers, and when/if they are choosing them over competing OSs like Windows and MacOS, then these questions matter a lot. My guess is that 90% of SteamDeck owners don't think about the fact that it is Linux, barely every leave the steam launcher, and were they to be looking at getting a new desktop computer, their SteamDeck experience would not make them consider a linux distro vs. Windows or MacOS. In case it matters, I think more people should be running Linux than do, I think people over-estimate the difficulty of switching. I want the steam deck and SteamOS to be a gateway for people to switch in more contexts....I'm just skeptical that it's actually doing that more than a trivial amount. | | |
| ▲ | IsTom 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You need to switch to desktop mode to install non-steam software like emulators, so I assume some people use it at least intermittently. And I've seen some posts about people running a DAW (bitwig) on it. It's not going to be many people, but the deck is a legit linux PC if you've got a dock with peripherials attached. Can't say that about other consoles. | |
| ▲ | samrus a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Great point actually. And it got me thinking, i already hook up the deck to my tv and use bluetooth peripherals with it. Maybw ill try using it as my daily driver at home |
|
| |
| ▲ | westpfelia a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yea except I cant use my PS5 as a actual desktop. As in my steamdeck has a DE. My actual desktop is 4000 km away. So I have a monitor and mouse + KB plugged into my steamdeck Dock and its no different. | |
| ▲ | const_cast 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The other consoles don't have the same capabilities. They don't have a desktop, so they're not a desktop. SteamOS has a desktop, and it's one of the most popular Linux desktops, KDE. So, it's a desktop operating system. |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway2037 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wow, I did not know this. Does anyone know the history behind why they chose KDE over GNOME? I promise: I am not picking a fight over those two. | | |
| ▲ | chupasaurus a day ago | parent [-] | | My guess is the same reason as with SteamOS: not relying on a single party. |
|
| |
| ▲ | happymellon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | By picking a standard menu option I can go to a traditional desktop and use Libre Office and Firefox. Can I so that with a Switch? I can plug in a USB dock, with a monitor, mouse and keyboard and edit images with GIMP. Can I do that with a PS5? If I like the Steam Deck UI, I can install a package on my desktop and pick it on login, thus gaining basically all of this functionality. I in fact do have the SteamOS 3 UI installed on a gaming PC, and it works really well. Can I install the PS5 UI and the ability to play PlayStation games on a BSD box? | | |
| ▲ | Our_Benefactors a day ago | parent [-] | | > Can I do that with a Switch? You can install Ubuntu on a Nintendo switch by using a paperclip so yes. https://www.reddit.com/r/SwitchHacks/comments/8f0ugz/hardwar... | | |
| ▲ | const_cast 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But that's not the same operating system. I would need to install a different operating system. So the Switch does not have a Linux Operating System - you can just install one. If that's the metric, then Linux desktop use must be close to 100%. Almost every platform can install some Linux distro. But SteamOS IS a Linux distro. | |
| ▲ | happymellon a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > by using a paperclip So, no? | | |
| ▲ | Our_Benefactors a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes, you can. With a paper clip. Some installations of linux require a USB drive. This one requires a paper clip. | | |
| ▲ | happymellon a day ago | parent [-] | | > > By picking a standard menu option I can go to a traditional desktop and use Libre Office and Firefox. > > Can I so that with a Switch? > Yes. With a paperclip A paperclip isn't a standard menu item. It's a hack to switch the operating systems. Once you've hacked it you can't play Switch games until you revert back. That's nothing like what the deck is offering. > Some installations of linux require a USB drive. We aren't talking about hacking, we are talking about whether the deck comes with desktop Linux, which it does. What you are talking about is nothing like what the Deck is offering. | | |
| ▲ | Our_Benefactors a day ago | parent [-] | | > you can't play Switch games until you revert back You literally just have to reboot into the normal switch OS, it’s not different than dual booting. | | |
| ▲ | happymellon a day ago | parent [-] | | The Deck doesn't need to "dual boot". Hit the power button and instead on sleep or shutdown pick desktop and it switches interfaces. When in the desktop mode it still has Steam and you can still play Steam games. You're really reaching with the Switch is a desktop OS. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | palata 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I can't use a Switch as a Desktop Linux, I can use my Steam Deck as a Desktop Linux. It's not exactly a belief, it's my experience. |
|
