> So what’s the point of binary compatibility (from the point of view of the people actually making Linux work: Open Source developers and repo maintainers)?

Want to see Linux on the desktop actually happen? Then allow a hassle free way for commercial software that is not "pray that WINE works good enough" aka use win32 as an ABI layer.

Of course we can stay on our high horses and demand that everything be open source and that life for closed source developers be made as difficult as possible (the Linux kernel is particularly and egregiously bad in that perspective), but then we don't get to whine about why Linux on the desktop hasn't fucking happened yet.

▲

bee_rider 7 days ago | parent [-]

I don’t really know what the point of this “Linux on the desktop” event would be, or even what it is. (Clearly it isn’t just Linux on desktops, because that’s been working fine forever).

The whole point of my comment was to keep in mind the incentives of different sub-groups. If “Linux on the desktop” doesn’t benefit the people that make Linux work, I don’t see what the big deal is.

▲

mschuster91 6 days ago | parent [-]

> I don’t really know what the point of this “Linux on the desktop” event would be, or even what it is.

Getting Linux adopted in F500 companies as the default desktop OS. That is the actual litmus test, because (large) companies need an OS that can be centrally managed with ease, doesn't generate a flood of DPU (Dumbest Possible User) support demand and can run the proprietary software that's vital to the company's needs in addition to the various spyware required by cybersecurity insurances and auditors these days.

At the moment, Linux just Is Not There. Windows has GPOs and AD (that, in addition, ties into Office 365 perfectly fine), Mac has JAMF and a few other MDM solutions. Many a corporate software doesn't even run properly under WINE (not surprising, the focus of Proton and, by it, WINE is gaming), there's a myriad ways of doing central management, and good luck trying to re-educate employees that have been at the company so long they grew roots into their chairs.

	▲	bee_rider 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sounds like an unpleasant task, done for users that don’t really want it, and don’t have much incentive or ability to contribute back to the community. It sort of feels like we’re talking past each-other. I’ve been trying to point out that, due to the community nature of these open source projects, development tends to follow the interests of the people who tend to contribute open source code to the projects. You’ve listed a number of challenges or thresholds that you think are important. However, after reading your comments, I can’t articulate who those thresholds are important to or why they are worth following. I don’t need another litmus test, I need some reason to care about testing. The idea of “Linux on the desktop” was a popular meme for a while, but I think it is a short-hand expression for a collection of things, some of which were achieved a decade ago, some of which weren’t, where there’s a strong correlation between “things that were accomplished” and “things that open source community contributors cared about,” and the remainder… were ignored because nobody wanted to do them.