elementary OS may not be as much as popular as it used to be.

That being said, elementary OS 8 release is still on the horizon with some useful changes based on Ubuntu 24.04 LTS.

However, amidst disagreement between co-founders during the pandemic in 2022, co-founder Cassidy quit the elementary OS team.

Right after that, the development pace took a big hit, and we saw elementary OS 7 being released almost a year after Ubuntu 22.04 LTS came up.

A good indicator about its development activity is its upcoming major release, elementary OS 8, based on Ubuntu 24.04 LTS.

I took a sneak peek at it using the daily build, and elementary OS 8 is almost ready to have an RC release.

You can expect things like:

  • The settings app handles system updates (instead of AppCenter)
  • AppCenter is now Flatpak only
  • New toggle menu icon giving you easy access to the screen reader, onscreen keyboard, font size, and other system settings
  • WireGuard VPN support
  • merthyr1831
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ubuntu, Mint, and to some extent PopOS are pegged as easy Windows/MacOS alternatives, just like ElementaryOS. They’re still popular.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • merthyr1831
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • TCB13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

        • merthyr1831
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • LeFantome@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

    • probableprotogen@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • merthyr1831
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.