They totally are the same thing, it’s called a Linux Distribution and you run the same exact software that runs on a server. There’s not Debian Desktop and Debian Server, it’s just one distribution. It’s clear you’re just looking to be dismissive without really understanding what you’re talking about.
It’s not like whatever software you can’t do your job without would have to be written twice for Linux Servers and Desktops, it’s the same thing. Where again is this distinction you’re trying to make?
Debian doesn’t make that distinction, but Ubuntu does. And even on the distros that don’t, you’d have to be an idioit to deny that the suite of applications desktop users use and the suite of applications you would ever, and I mean ever, deploy on a server have pretty close to zero overlap.
That’s great you found a distribution that has two different images, one for desktop and and one for server. Does that mean that the desktop version of Ubuntu isn’t a “real” operating system as Polar says? Only the server distribution is a “real” operating system? That was the whole crux of the argument to begin with.
No, it’s saying that your “proof” that Linux is a viable operating system in all spaces simply because it is the primary operating system in the server space is invalid.
This is not a very “real” response of you. Your response isn’t applicable to all problem domains. Let’s just keep moving the argument to whatever imaginary boundary fits your personal opinion.
Edit: I’m just as big of an idiot for trying to argue with polar’s toothless and subjective “real” claim as I am with you about some pointless server shit. They all use the same packaged software anyways! 😂
Literally what? “Linux is good on the desktop because Apache isn’t available for Windows” is a non-argument. End users don’t care that Linux can run server software, and people who own servers don’t care that Linux can run a desktop. The fact that both can use the same kernel, userspace, and package manager does not change the fact that there is a very real dichotomy. You might as well argue that MacOS is good for gaming because it can run productivity software just fine, and the latest Macs have GPUs that are (according to Apple’s inscrutable benchmarks, anyway) as good as a midrange NVidia chip.
Authors of server software develop primarily for Linux. This is great, but not especially useful to desktop users, who have no use for server software, and who productivity software developers and game developers frequently ignore. None of that has ANYTHING to do with whether or not Linux is a “real” operating system. What Polar was trying to argue was that Linux is not viable for desktop use since it is rarely if ever considered by authors of software that desktop users actually need.
The distinction I am making is that most software developers don’t consider Linux Desktop a real OS, and that’s why Linsux nerds are begging for developers to release Linux versions.
Linux isn’t trying to compete with Windows for the desktop market. Making fun of it for failing to do that is dishonest at best. It caters to the very specific needs and wants of programmers, and it does that incredibly well. The fact that it can now run some quite high-end art and video production packages is a bonus, and if Linux is one day able to present itself as a viable alternative to Apple’s walled garden and Microsoft’s data-mining adware, so much the better, but no one with an ounce of sense (coughgardinerbryantcough) would seriously argue that Linux will be ready for mass adoption at any point within the next ten years.
Linux isn’t trying to compete with Windows for the desktop market. Making fun of it for failing to do that is dishonest at best.
20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023 2024 IS THE YEAR OF LINUX!!!
It caters to the very specific needs and wants of programmers, and it does that incredibly well.
Too bad Linux users don’t understand this. Lemmy is full of Linux nerds acting like Linux is a viable replacement to Windows/MacOS, when it’s not for the majority of users.
The fact that it can now run some quite high-end art and video production packages is a bonus
Ya, despite the fact Davinci free cannot edit h.264 or h.265 video on Linux, or that neither the free or PAID versions can use AAC audio. Very professional.
but no one with an ounce of sense (coughgardinerbryantcough) would seriously argue that Linux will be ready for mass adoption at any point within the next ten years.
I stand by my point that no one with an ounce of sense will seriously argue that Linux is ready for mass adoption. The extremely vocal minority that does not have an ounce of sense does not invalidate my point.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
They totally are the same thing, it’s called a Linux Distribution and you run the same exact software that runs on a server. There’s not Debian Desktop and Debian Server, it’s just one distribution. It’s clear you’re just looking to be dismissive without really understanding what you’re talking about.
It’s not like whatever software you can’t do your job without would have to be written twice for Linux Servers and Desktops, it’s the same thing. Where again is this distinction you’re trying to make?
Debian doesn’t make that distinction, but Ubuntu does. And even on the distros that don’t, you’d have to be an idioit to deny that the suite of applications desktop users use and the suite of applications you would ever, and I mean ever, deploy on a server have pretty close to zero overlap.
That’s great you found a distribution that has two different images, one for desktop and and one for server. Does that mean that the desktop version of Ubuntu isn’t a “real” operating system as Polar says? Only the server distribution is a “real” operating system? That was the whole crux of the argument to begin with.
No, it’s saying that your “proof” that Linux is a viable operating system in all spaces simply because it is the primary operating system in the server space is invalid.
This is not a very “real” response of you. Your response isn’t applicable to all problem domains. Let’s just keep moving the argument to whatever imaginary boundary fits your personal opinion.
Edit: I’m just as big of an idiot for trying to argue with polar’s toothless and subjective “real” claim as I am with you about some pointless server shit. They all use the same packaged software anyways! 😂
Literally what? “Linux is good on the desktop because Apache isn’t available for Windows” is a non-argument. End users don’t care that Linux can run server software, and people who own servers don’t care that Linux can run a desktop. The fact that both can use the same kernel, userspace, and package manager does not change the fact that there is a very real dichotomy. You might as well argue that MacOS is good for gaming because it can run productivity software just fine, and the latest Macs have GPUs that are (according to Apple’s inscrutable benchmarks, anyway) as good as a midrange NVidia chip.
Authors of server software develop primarily for Linux. This is great, but not especially useful to desktop users, who have no use for server software, and who productivity software developers and game developers frequently ignore. None of that has ANYTHING to do with whether or not Linux is a “real” operating system. What Polar was trying to argue was that Linux is not viable for desktop use since it is rarely if ever considered by authors of software that desktop users actually need.
Take a deep breath, buddy. We’re on programminghumor
The distinction I am making is that most software developers don’t consider Linux Desktop a real OS, and that’s why Linsux nerds are begging for developers to release Linux versions.
Linux isn’t trying to compete with Windows for the desktop market. Making fun of it for failing to do that is dishonest at best. It caters to the very specific needs and wants of programmers, and it does that incredibly well. The fact that it can now run some quite high-end art and video production packages is a bonus, and if Linux is one day able to present itself as a viable alternative to Apple’s walled garden and Microsoft’s data-mining adware, so much the better, but no one with an ounce of sense (coughgardinerbryantcough) would seriously argue that Linux will be ready for mass adoption at any point within the next ten years.
200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024 IS THE YEAR OF LINUX!!!Too bad Linux users don’t understand this. Lemmy is full of Linux nerds acting like Linux is a viable replacement to Windows/MacOS, when it’s not for the majority of users.
Ya, despite the fact Davinci free cannot edit h.264 or h.265 video on Linux, or that neither the free or PAID versions can use AAC audio. Very professional.
You’ve guys been saying this for decades lol.
I stand by my point that no one with an ounce of sense will seriously argue that Linux is ready for mass adoption. The extremely vocal minority that does not have an ounce of sense does not invalidate my point.
So nuanced and articulate