I’m curious to hear thoughts on this. I agree for the most part, I just wish people would see the benefit of choice and be brave enough to try it out.
Today’s Linux is not yesterday’s Linux. Now, the platform is incredibly easy to use. There’s no more need to use the command line.
It still blows my mind when people say this. Linux is incredibly NOT user friendly, and you’re constantly sent into the CLI for basic debugging or even just installation of software.
The reliance on CLI is exactly why it will never be more popular, and I think Linux users/developers like it that way.
As for an “official” Linux distribution, that’s a neat idea but simply never going to happen. No one will ever agree to that.
This is an inherent limitation of “free as in freedom” software. The simple option of choice complicates things, and always will.
people are ok with using the command line but they get scared about the potential complexity
God you people are so blind. No one gets “scared”. They just don’t want to dedicate the time to memorize a thousand different commands across a hundred different OSes.
If a gui is equally complex, it would turn away users too
But they arent.
You can put a myriad of setup and administration options into the GUI and most people still have no interest in them. These people just have no interest in using a computer like that. They “just want it to work”. It’s not a CLI v. GUI problem, it’s one of assumed responsibility.
This is an inherent limitation of “free as in freedom” software.
“Free as in freedom” really only refers to developers. The non-developers are beholden to whoever packages and distributes their software for them. We Linux users who aren’t system developers let the “distro maintainers” do the developer work for us. That’s why a distro’s website is full of mission statements and declarations of philosophy–it’s how we decide who to trust.
And it’s the same for the “non-nerds” with system administration. Businesses hire admins to handle their internal software and networks, and at home people let Apple, Microsoft or Google take increasingly more control over their devices so that they aren’t responsible for getting it all working.
These people just have no interest in using a computer like that. They “just want it to work”.
Yes these are the people I’m referring to also. We’re not talking about network engineering or developing software. We’re talking about installing a program or virtually any kind of debugging.
Can we please stop this nonsense already? With Linux on desktop we had two goals:
- hardware support
- software support
We achieved both goals. Since probably 20 years ago I’ve been using Linux exclusively both at work and at home. All my hardware works, all my software works. Why would I care if Linux gets to 20%, 80% or 100% market share? At this point if some companies or game developers don’t support Linux it’s their loss, I will find an alternative. And if some users is still using Windows it’s also their loss. I feel sorry for them but I stopped encouraging people to use Linux years ago. We’re good, our feature is secured, we don’t need to push for more users anymore.
We achieved both goals and now I have to force my Nvidia card into high performance mode because otherwise I have a black flicker on my screen constantly. It’s way better than it used to be, but it’s far from where it needs to be.
Windows has it’s own hardware/software issues. Just because you get more adoption doesn’t mean everything will start working.
You have a very loose definition of “achieved.” There are countless hardware devices lacking support. Microsoft Office, the most widely used business productivity tool in the world by far, still has either limited or no support on Linux. Most of the top 20 games on Twitch are either completely unsupported, or require onerous workarounds with poor performance.
It’s great that you have achieved what you desire, but you’re not representative of everyone.
It’s not Linux’s job to run software designed for another OS. It’s great that it sometimes does (thanks to wine/proton), but as a litmus test it seems a little odd.
I’m with that guy. It’s exceptionally easy to run Linux full time these days for anyone who wants to. (Have been doing so since 2007, and it was already easier then than it was for the trailblazers.) It requires almost no thought to ensure the hardware I buy will be fully supported.
I don’t care in the least if someone chooses something else to run on their computer, and I’m years past the point where I can even understand why I’m supposed to.
It’s not Linux’s job to run software designed for another OS…as a litmus test it seems a little odd.
LOL it is the job of an operating system (ANY operating system) to be able to run the software you need/want. So in that regard, it’s not “odd” at all.
It’s not Linux’s job to run software designed for another OS.
It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. This isn’t about assigning blame. It’s about acknowledging reality. The bottom line is that Linux is still lacking a lot of software and hardware compatibility which Windows offers.
I’m using outlook on Linux (at work), it has a web interface. Office 365 works on Linux. As for games it’s entertainment, you can choose what you play. There are alternatives for pretty much everything (Figma, Gimp. Krita, Blender). Even if Linux gets 50% of the market some companies/game studios still will not support it. We will never get to 100% support so that’s simply unrealistic goal. You can disagree but for me the goal was to make sure that Linux will not get abandoned and die. The danger was in proprietary protocols and standards, in closed source firmware and drivers. Today it may seem obvious but when I was using Linux 20 years ago it was only possible because someone was reverse engineering protocols and drivers. Main communicator on the internet had only windows client, lots of hardware didn’t have Linux drivers, MS was actively trying to kill Linux by promoting closed standards. It was a real possibility that this shit will spread and make Linux on the desktop unusable. Today we’re passed that. We won. If someone is on windows it’s because they want to play specific games or use specific software. Their choice, I don’t care.
@JasSmith linux devs cant force every developer out there to release a linux compatible version of their sw. If MS doesnt want to build a linux version of one of their s/w, the best that can be done is support their custom doc format.
Also your argument is very one sided if you want linux to seemlessly run every type of binary like exe, dmg of completely incompatible OS. Linux does provides a decent translation layer that attempts at it. How many of the other OS can do so?
You incorrectly infer blame. This isn’t anyone’s fault. I am simply acknowledging the reality of the situation: Linux still lacks compatibility with a lot of hardware, software, and games. That fact is contributing to its low consumer adoption. In just one year, Steam Deck’s exceptional adoption thanks to seamless compatibility and user experience should prove this.
Get outta my head. 100% agree and could have written your post.
Last time I wanted a gaming laptop (go away gatekeepers, laptop was the right choice for me) I grabbed the first RTX2080 machine that fit my price point from one of my preferred mfr and the build I did just after I got it is still on it today. Have done everything I wanted to with it.
I wanted something smaller and lighter for some other tasks recently, so without much money to spend grabbed a 4ish year old refurbished Lenovo. Touchscreen, stylus, fingerprint reader, everything just works. I did no research beyond a quick google to be sure there weren’t immediate results telling me to stay away for Linux for that specific model.
I can’t remember the last time I cared what someone else ran on their computer, and at this point I’m annoyed that ZDNet and others think I’m supposed to.
I also use and support Windows at work, and I know how absolute bullshit the idea that everything works flawlessly on Windows is. (Setting aside things like “telemetry”, the way you have to force windows to behave as desired, all the other privacy stuff, and all the ads) But, at least I only touch windows when being paid to do so now, so there’s that.
Even for someone like me who prefers linux I still end up using windows most of the time. Even with 90% of games working on linux, theres that 10% I still need to boot up windows for.
The author is an idiot.
When someone comes to me asking how to get into Linux, they do not need to hear a laundry list of distributions to choose from.
Only techies ask anyone how they “get into Linux”. Say it with me now. “People don’t buy, buy into, get into, install, or use operating systems” They buy fuckin computers. It is perceptibly to virtually all non-techies a feature of the device.
There are a million types of cars but people manage to pick one and buy it same with breakfast cereals or shampoo because they are obligated to make a decision or go hungry, dirty, or walk everywhere.
People don’t particularly like making decisions and they decided what OS they were going to use when they bought the computer and they have no intention of downloading an iso, write it to a USB, figure out how they boot from it, figure out the bios options they need to disable and what works differently than what they are familiar with.
You lost them around step 2 and lost all hope of moving forward unless the prize at the end is something much better than “does everything I used to do but differently”
The success of Chromebooks, android phones, and the steam deck is that it was driven by devices people wanted to use not an OS people wanted to use. If you want to see more Linux use that is the story you need to focus on.
This is one that we can’t just solve by putting computers on the shelf.
Some people have tools that don’t work on Linux natively. If somebody is using and is familiar with Microsoft Excel, there isn’t a straightforward way to install it and FOSS options aren’t the same. The same can be said of Adobe.
Linux as a desktop environment will have to be for enthusiasts for a while longer. Hopefully, somebody gets more feature parity with the existing suites and the transition can just work out of the box.
But Linux when compared to Windows and Mac is a case study of capitalism vs FOSS. We (Linux users) generally think Linux is better and maybe it is, but Microsoft and Apple spent tons of money to make theirs what they are today and we didn’t.
The open source ecosystem by virtue of being free software just doesn’t have those billions of dollars to invest. For office software google docs are sufficient for a whole lot of use cases and easily shareable whereas more complex usage is easily handled by libre office.
Photoshop is legitimately better than alternatives but popular as it is only a tiny fraction of PC users use or need Adobe.
26M vs 2B is approx 1.3% of PCs
I also don’t need to select my car based on its ability to haul thousands of pounds of cargo or its performance on a racetrack either.
If we want photoshop for Linux we need to collectively bankroll it. If not there is plenty of space in the market for computers without photoshop because that is by far the majority of computers.
Alternatively coming soon to a web browser near you
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=vvNoZxoMuGI
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Microsoft and Apple spent tons of money to make theirs what they are today and we didn’t
Not personally, but there’s loads of companies that work and contribute to the kernel and all the surrounding software, they give funds, obviously not as huge as Microsoft’s paycheck, but with less I’d say we have achieved way way more in several aspects, application support is entirely on the devs, be it Microsoft (again) or Adobe or what have you, yet we’re able to run alternative suites that are at least an 80% of what those proprietary options offer, for the office suite in particular I think we’re pretty well off with Onlyoffice.
Money, though important, is clearly not a measure of quality in software
My point wasn’t that they spend money on quality. Much of what they spend on is perception and awareness.
If Lenovo or HP or whatever started selling their notebooks for way cheaper without the windows license on the machine linux would probably get a lot more usage. But they would probably have to put big warnings on that to avoid a big return wave, which would hamper the whole deal.
Actually OEMS get money for including Windows because they include shovelware trials of crap like Norton that is of greater value than the reduced cost of Windows to the big players. If sold at difference in cost the decrapified Linux version would be more expensive not less.
That’s not mutually exclusive with the author’s argument, though.
if a computer vendor offers multiple distributions to choose from, the problem of choice remains.
And if the vendor only offers one option, which one should it be? And how can a user verify that it’s a “good” option?
It wouldn’t really matter, does everyone wonder if the Android ROM they’re running is the best and if they should install a different one?
People do notice how good or bad they are, but that’s it, at most they’ll switch to a different vendor next time they buy a product
Mostly because not all games work on Linux. Also so far I haven’t found one with a good update policy. It’s either bleeding edge or an update a year.
