Can't we REALLY expect Linux to

Yeah, sure. Good point, user.

Attached: 080.png (3840x1080, 5.13M)

As fun as it is to frame a potentially interesting technical discussion as a series of unproductive complaints, insults, and holy war rhetoric, I'm actually interested to know if such a feature could be implemented, and if not, what prevents that from being possible.

I'm not too familiar with the inner workings of D-Bus, but that would be my first guess for where to look. Surely D-Bus must know when one of the processes connected to it terminates. Does D-Bus have access to the standard output of connected processes?

...

The way GUIs for linux are made, it's clear that nobody put any serious thought into them. This follows because linux is primarily for servers, so desktop linux will always take a back seat. Still, the number of different distributions for workstation linux would make you think it was mature, when in facts it's a hacked together PoS.

The way this would be solved on any other OS is quite simple: each application developer would be interested in making his program pass a bare minimum level of usability, so he would implement the dialogue himself using a standard interface meant for the purpose. You could create yet another hack that would sort of work half the time. But it would leave you even more confused the 10% of the time the hack didn't work.

I'm damn lucky I like server software, so I can manage fine with linux. But I feel very sorry for all the people who do graphical work, and have to suffer through their choice of hell.

linux errors are better than modern windows errors. linux gives useful information windows just some stupid something happened tier message that wont help at all.

So what? You are stooping pretty low if you have to compare yourself to Windows to say you have better error messages.

This is not a problem with Linux but a problem with specific projects that don't provide a graphical dialog box for errors.
You should probably stop using that program and instead look for a more graphical alternative.

This deflection of responsibility and criticism is so common I can't tell if you truly believe this or if you're merely pretending to.

So, the system doesn't provide decent abstractions for much of anything, but that's everything else's fault? The Linux kernel doesn't even implement something such as fsync() in a way that database programmers expect, leading to issues. When every program needs to have loops to use system calls correctly, specialized code to sanitize filenames correctly, or its own abstractions just to report errors graphically, what's the point of the underlying "operating system"?

?

yeah this is like programming a game engine all over again