• AVincentInSpace
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • AnomalousBit@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • AVincentInSpace
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • AnomalousBit@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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! 😂

          • AVincentInSpace
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.