I said desktop. You literally quoted it.
Linux server and Linux desktop aren’t the same thing.
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.
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.
