It’s not viable for the mainstream. “It depends on the person” suggests it’s luck of the draw, but the Linux desktop penetration is something like 1-4%, at best, and that’s inlcuding SteamOS and PiOS in the mix.
That’s not, “depends on the person”, that’s “doesn’t work for the vast majority of people”. There is a reason for that.
For someone who does a good job of pointing out fallacies in Linux fans’ logic, I find it surprising you’re making the argument that because there isn’t wide adoption yet, it doesn’t work for most people.
That premise only floats if nearly everyone has tried Linux for a while to see if it works for them. Obviously that’s not true.
I disagree with your argument, though. It depends on why people aren’t trying Linux. If they aren’t trying Linux because they don’t know it exists, then yeah, sure.
But it’s been over twenty years. If Linux was convincing people who just stumble upon it reliably it would have done better than going from 2 to 4%. In the time since you’ve been able to install Ubuntu (“it installs just like Windows!”, the PC magazines said at the time) mobile phones were taken over by Symbian, replaced by iOS almost entirely and then iOS lost the lead to Android.
So no, not everybody has tried it, but a whole lot of people have heard of it and avoided it for its (earned) reputation for being finicky, incompatible and hard to set up without tech expertise. If you solve the issues I’m calling out you solve that issue as well.
Yes it is a good point you’re making. Since windows, Mac, and Linux all three spent billions of dollars marketing their product, Linux clearly lost and that shows everyone said no to it. /s
It has that reputation because 10-15 years ago it was actually true. And that reputation remains because of people like you who lie and say that’s still how it is. Serious question, why are you doing this? It’s obvious you’re either ignorant or intentionally misinterpreting how Linux would work if a large company with brand recognition had the balls to preinstall it on all their machines.
It’s pretty obvious it wouldn’t be noticed except people would wonder why their computers were so much faster and streamlined than all their other ones.
But you can’t allow for the obvious. You’re just here to naysay and the agenda is visible from space. Why though, makes no sense. Because it truly is doubtful you’re paid by Microsoft. Too many people do what you’re doing here to be paid for it. It’s a kind of self affirmation if I were to guess. But that still wouldn’t really explain the compulsion to do it so often and forcefully.
Dude, I don’t mind your fanfic, but maybe we should keep it to a single subthread? No need to interfere with the conversation elsewhere to theorycraft narratives for your anti-Linux Avengers movie.
Anyway, on whatever morsel of a point there is here, I’m actually going to argue that the sweet spot for Linux feature parity and ease of use was a while ago. Back in the late 00s there was a beautiful moment where the hardware was standardized enough and the user-friendly distros were hassle-free enough that Linux had effective feature parity. Plus Windows was still fairly unstable and hacked-together, so it didn’t look great in side by side comparisons against competitors. The bummer then was that the software compatibility just wasn’t there to capitalize.
These days we have a lot better software parity, but the hardware support and streamlined UX have regressed a bit, partially because GPUs are kind of nuts now and GPU drivers are this gargantuan babel tower of per-game tweaks that needs constant support and display specs are kind of absurd as well. And because laptops are increasingly reliant on custom hardware and software, at least in mainstream brands that often don’t provide explicit Linux support. But also because the Linux community has been weirdly resistant to embracing baseline contemporary functionality, let’s be honest, particularly on the display side. In any case, it’s actually harder to migrate any given piece of kit to a Linux install seamlessly now than it was back then.
That bit of history, incidentally, also answering the first bit, because while Linux has never been marketed quite as aggressively as the paid alternatives, it is certainly no secret mystery. People were aware of it, it was often proposed as the fallback default install if you didn’t want Windows OEM fees and it’s had decades to spread via word of mouth. It’s just not kept up with the way modern computers are put together.
It was marketed. Like I said above, I remember the Ubuntu launch being kind of a big deal and having a bit of messaging muscle behind it. I also have branded Red Hat install CDs in storage that seem to have been some sort of sponsorship or collab, which is a nice historical artifact. One kinda like this.
And then there were dedicated hobby magazines and sections in computing magazines and stuff like that. Most weren’t necessarily affiliated to any one company, but it was a thing you’d see in a magazine rack every now and then.
Obviously nothing on the level of the commercial, paid OS, but there have been multiple times where companies built around Linux did do some concerted promotion.
It is likely a fact that the majority of middle aged computer users have never even heard of Linux, but sure. Because redhat spent a few dollars a year on marketing, that’s definitely an apt comparison. Lmfao, disingenuous is the only word for you.
Look, you can try to reframe what I’m saying into entirely different arguments in your head as much as you want, but as you kept saying reading the previous posts is easy.
I’d be curious to see that poll, though. I’m liking my chances with millenials, honestly.
Just so I’m clear, here, your working hypothesis is that Linux isn’t more popular because people don’t know that it exists? Is that the idea? Like, if you ran ads for it on Youtube or something it’d skyrocket in usage?
I agree with some of your points but in this one and other comments you are referencing “data” multiple times to provide validity for your opinions, yet you either fail to understand what the data is able to measure or you are using it dishonestly to further your argument.
A usage percentage does not provide reliable data about the usability (“viability for the mainstream”). There are too many factors at play distorting it to make a reliable connection between these two.
“It depends on the person” suggests it’s luck of the draw, but the Linux desktop penetration is something like 1-4%, at best, and that’s inlcuding SteamOS and PiOS in the mix […] that’s “doesn’t work for the vast majority of people”
The only way in which the percentage would be useful is, if you are implying that the other 96-99% chose to not use linux, because it doesn’t work for them, which is obviously not the case. Otherwise it is completely meaningless, as users were never exposed to linux, thus didn‘t have to make a decision, and thus didn’t deem another operating system superior.
There are a few objections along these lines in this thread, where the implication is that Linux is underused because it lacks awareness. Maybe it’s a generational thing? Linux has been around for a long time now, people are aware of it. There are multiple popular device lines out there that use it, several companies even put some marketing behind it.
I don’t know if you were there when Ubuntu first hit, but it was pretty widely reported. And that was twenty years ago. And of course Valve and Raspberry and Android and ChromeOs all were reported to carry flavours of Linux to the masses.
I mean, I’m sure a bigger, more coordinated marketing campaign would help, but it’s not a secret tucked away on nerdy cycles. I remember being in a college classroom in what? 2006? And when a professor didn’t know what Linux was the entire classroom laughed at them for reacting in disbelief at the notion that Linux was free (“so if something breaks who provides support?” I remember them asking, it was hilarious).
Look, it’s been a long time since you can just pull installation media of Linux from the Internet and just give it a try. Awareness is a factor, but it’s not THE reason Linux isn’t more widespread.
I disagree that the implication is only about lack of awareness. Further my point wasn’t that Linux is underused because of a lack of awareness. My point is that user popularity is not a valid measurement for usability.
Awareness definitely plays a role in user numbers but there are other more important factors. For example awareness of Linux doesn’t beat what comes preinstalled, this is a much bigger factor if we are talking about all desktop users in my opinion. Linux could have the best usability out of all desktop OS, most would still not change preinstalled OS for different reasons e.g. not knowledgeable enough, indifference etc… You might argue that if it was the OS it would come preinstalled, but then you would be ignoring the economic reasons that guide that.
I still maintain that popularity of an OS is not a metric that can be used to infer usability. As long as there are different hurdles to getting to the actual using part, actual usability can‘t be determined by popularity.
On a side note about awareness:
Maybe it’s a generational thing?
It could very well be, or it could potentially be something geographical. Anecdotally in my friends group of university students(20-26year olds) in a non-technical-field, not a single Person (beside me) knew what Linux was, and most had never heard the term before I mentioned it in a conversation. Neither would my parents. So maybe not a generational thing. I think you might be viewing the extent of awareness from the eyes of someone broadly in the tech field?
For the record, in the anecdote in question the professor was teaching marketing in a non-tech degree, so I’m not sure about that one. The argument, IIRC was about them arguing that the Win95 launch campaign had been one of the, if not THE most successful marketing campaign ever, which all the millenials in the room were not having. Prof argued “nobody even knows what the second most successful PC OS would be” and the Linux incident happened. It was very funny.
Anyway, on the underlying point I agree that you could change the usage numbers in many ways, but the argument here is not that the low usage info proves the bad usability, necessarily. I’m saying the bad usability and compatibility issues are a major problem that makes the OS hard to embrace for most users. That’s the hypothesis. The info that after decades of public, free availability Linux remains a marginal choice is a piece of info that reinforces that hypothesis. It doesn’t prove it by itself, but it’s certainly very consistent with it.
I’d argue that the fact that Linux is free and it’s not preinstalled more often also reinforces that point. In fact some PC builders would offer it as a fallback if you didn’t want to pay for Windows, especially back in the 00s when the functionality gap was actually narrower than it is now, and that didn’t seem to help much, with most people still paying the fee to get a OEM Windows install.
But all of that is still indications we see in the market of the ripple effects of Linux’s reputation, which would be ripple effects of its UX and compatibility issues. It’s not the entire picture, but it sure fits in the picture, if you see what I’m saying.
That is not true though. The vast majority of people are people that don’t do much on their systems at all. Maybe look at Facebook or a few sites, write the occasional document or email and maybe play a few simple games. The type of people that have never heard of Linux or even know what an OS is let alone able to switch to another one. Those types of people will be perfectly happy on Linux if it came pre installed.
The people switching ATM and having issues are the highly technical people that have far more complex requirements and for those it does depend on the person and what they need to do.
The low percentage of users is not a sign of of it not being ready, just the sheer marketing and effort Microsoft has put into making windows the default option.
Again, same as the response above: that use case is covered in phones and tablets. Nobody who is just browsing the web is changing their entire OS. Especially if their main device is currently running Android or iPadOS/iOS. I am sure my parents could use Linux the same way they use their current device, but their current device is an Android tablet they know how to use and works just like their phone. I’m not switching them over for nerd bragging rights.
I mean, sure, they mostly would use a Linux device as a ChromeOS device (ChromeOS also at residual usage levels, incidentally), but it’s disingenuous to pretend articles like the one linked here are targeting those users, and it’s definitely not the focus for Linux desktop usage and development, either.
No no but see the narrative is that they are a completely neutral Linux user who just knows the truth that no one besides them would ever like Linux because reasons!
To suggest otherwise is straying from that narrative and that is not allowed. Bad XBeam!!
Man, I would love for desktop Linux to get to the level of Android when it comes to dedicated support. Are you kidding me? Hell, I was telling raging fanboy down there that I actually find desktop Android is a more reliable experience for light usage at this point. At least you have some expectation of universal app support across the ecosystem and the hardware comes pre-configured out of the box.
The problem is that a desktop OS is a much, much harder challenge. You’re not shipping a custom image dedicated to the specific piece of hardware and just ensuring all software runs in it, you have to provide a modular install that will not just adjust to whatever weird combo of hardware the user has at the time, but also support radical changes in that hardware going forward. It’s kinda nuts that computers ended up working that way.
But they do. And Windows handles it by way of being the default use case for all that hardware, so it gets all the third party support. And Apple doesn’t handle it because they ship their OS like phones ship their OSs, so they don’t have to.
But I’m telling you right now, the day the desktop Linux experience matches Android I will default to it, no questions asked, just like I did on my phone and on my tablet.
Well that’s unlikely to happen since Android is locked down spyware.
I’m not really seeing your point. You don’t have to use Linux and you are perfectly free to use whatever you want. The strange part is how you keep insisting that it is somehow behind. Linux for me is the only thing that works for me. Windows simply lacks a lot of the Linux feature set and apps. Plus I can’t stand ads, AI and other user hostile stuff. I straight up could not use Windows as it would slow me down.
We may not be reading the word “mainstream” the same way here, because when you have a small oligopoly with one player at 75%, one at 15% and one at 4%… well, yeah, one of those is mainstream and one of those is not. That’s kind of how being mainstream works. Hell, that’s borderline monopolistic.
That’s not the same as a commodity where dozens or hundreds of options are available and compete on relatively equal footing. The comparison isn’t Captain Crunch versus Corn Flakes, it’s Coca-Cola versus Green Cola. I can find Green Cola in my supermarket… but it sure as hell isn’t the mainstream choice.
That’s different to “being ready for the mainstream”, though. Linux is not mainstream because it has big blockers that prevent it. The lack of readiness is a cause of the lack of mainstream appeal, not the other way around. For the same reason that Green Cola’s stevia-forward absolutely wild aftertaste is a cause of its lack of mainstream appeal.
I do realize not everybody will get this comparison, but if you know you know.
There are more people who only browse and use cross platform apps that don’t realise they could switch easily, than there are people for whom a switch would be problematic.
Windows has more supported software, but many people use a small range of common software. Gamers are just one niche. Just like you think Linux users are an echo chamber here, you are not considering the echo chamber of gamers you’re in that dont represent most windows users.
Honestly I’m waiting for a small company to license a Linux desktop to companies with support. It would need to be desktop focused and designed to be indestructible.
My concern isn’t gaming. If you do read what I wrote above, I actually say explicitly that gaming improvement is one of the more solid improvements on Linux recently.
The real problem isn’t PC gamers, who are typically tech savvy (although the issues with anticheat and display hardware compatibility are relevant for a big chunk of many millions of casual gamers). The problem is with people who use their PCs for work using unsupported software in Windows or Mac. Those people have no time for troubleshooting. One key piece of software doesn’t work or isn’t available? That’s a dealbreaker. One area of the setup has a problem that needs tinkering for troubleshooting? That’s a dealbreaker. I am using my computer to make money, I don’t have time for posturing. Either all the stuff I need works or it doesn’t.
Gaming is a problem, but it actually has a lot of people working to support it because at least one major company is betting on that to make money. Software and hardware compatibility doesn’t have the same corporate backing and it makes Linux impractical.
I’ve even known gen z people who would prefer a laptop because they are easier to reliably type on and have bigger screens, yet here you are denying that anyone wouldn’t just settle for the crippled experience of a shitty phone or tablet if they could opt for better. As if there aren’t millions of people who would prefer a desktop OS, because of several reasons, but having grown up with them as just being one of them.
That is barely a sentence, let alone a cogent argument.
We do have data on these things, we know how the market breaks down. For the record, the experience for tablet devices is way less crippled than you may remember if you haven’t used one in a while. The tablet my parents use has a very nice detachable keyboard and a dedicated desktop mode. For web applications there isn’t much difference from using a laptop, and they do appreciate the ability to use it as a screen with no keyboard for media consumption.
I have tried to get Linux running on a few PC hybrids and tablets, but most of them are a bit too quirky, and even the ones with some attempt at dedicated support from the community are a bit of a hassle, unfortunately.
Great, my grammar is somehow imperfect so you win. /s
Popularity is far from an indicator of preference. Tablets and phones are cheap and thus popular. Unfortunately I use both often for testing work stuff. It’s never fun. Typing on a touch screen is trash.
Yes, presumably that’s why they put a physical keyboard on the one I’m describing, along with all those other magnetic detachable keyboards they tend to ship these days.
Look, if you’re going to furiously argue with people on the Internet, it helps to read what they write to at least keep your responses vaguely consistent. It’s not a problem of grammar, this is barely a conversation now.
Well, yes, I have. That’s why reading what I say is important.
Most computing happens on a browser. Browsers, as it turns out, run on Windows and iOS and Android and Mac OS and everything else.
So if you do 80% of your computing on a browser and 20% natively, then you still have no reason to be on a OS that doesn’t do what you need for the other 20%. The right answer for light usage is whatever came preinstalled in your device (likely Windows, Android or iPadOS, if Chrome browsing is all you do).
So if nothing else is relevant that still doesn’t make Linux THE go-to or suitable for mainstream usage. It’s not preloaded in most devices, it is hard to get working well on the types of custom setups most mass market laptops ship with, it’s less convenient or outright incompatible on the mobile hardware casual users prefer and it’s extra work to set up in any case, which you’re not going to do if you’re a normie, because, again, all computers have browsers.
It’s a bizarre argument to begin with, and it’s definitely not the only thing that’s “relevant”.
Also, this is getting in the weeds, but I’ll point out that all my mobile devices will spit out HDR media out of a browser with little drama. Even Windows got there eventually. Seriously, how is it still so finicky in Linux? It’s been standardized and mainstream since 2016, at least.
It is not a problem of whether it works for most people or not. It is a cultural problem. People hate change. That’s largely why people hate windows 11 even.
And it even leads people to spend an hour arguing with strangers about how completely unacceptable Linux is for most people when there’s actually a lot of arguments against that and very few in favor of it.
It’s not viable for the mainstream. “It depends on the person” suggests it’s luck of the draw, but the Linux desktop penetration is something like 1-4%, at best, and that’s inlcuding SteamOS and PiOS in the mix.
That’s not, “depends on the person”, that’s “doesn’t work for the vast majority of people”. There is a reason for that.
“it’s not ready for the mainstream because it’s not mainstream” truly fantastic logic
For someone who does a good job of pointing out fallacies in Linux fans’ logic, I find it surprising you’re making the argument that because there isn’t wide adoption yet, it doesn’t work for most people.
That premise only floats if nearly everyone has tried Linux for a while to see if it works for them. Obviously that’s not true.
I disagree with your argument, though. It depends on why people aren’t trying Linux. If they aren’t trying Linux because they don’t know it exists, then yeah, sure.
But it’s been over twenty years. If Linux was convincing people who just stumble upon it reliably it would have done better than going from 2 to 4%. In the time since you’ve been able to install Ubuntu (“it installs just like Windows!”, the PC magazines said at the time) mobile phones were taken over by Symbian, replaced by iOS almost entirely and then iOS lost the lead to Android.
So no, not everybody has tried it, but a whole lot of people have heard of it and avoided it for its (earned) reputation for being finicky, incompatible and hard to set up without tech expertise. If you solve the issues I’m calling out you solve that issue as well.
Yes it is a good point you’re making. Since windows, Mac, and Linux all three spent billions of dollars marketing their product, Linux clearly lost and that shows everyone said no to it. /s
It has that reputation because 10-15 years ago it was actually true. And that reputation remains because of people like you who lie and say that’s still how it is. Serious question, why are you doing this? It’s obvious you’re either ignorant or intentionally misinterpreting how Linux would work if a large company with brand recognition had the balls to preinstall it on all their machines.
It’s pretty obvious it wouldn’t be noticed except people would wonder why their computers were so much faster and streamlined than all their other ones.
But you can’t allow for the obvious. You’re just here to naysay and the agenda is visible from space. Why though, makes no sense. Because it truly is doubtful you’re paid by Microsoft. Too many people do what you’re doing here to be paid for it. It’s a kind of self affirmation if I were to guess. But that still wouldn’t really explain the compulsion to do it so often and forcefully.
Dude, I don’t mind your fanfic, but maybe we should keep it to a single subthread? No need to interfere with the conversation elsewhere to theorycraft narratives for your anti-Linux Avengers movie.
Anyway, on whatever morsel of a point there is here, I’m actually going to argue that the sweet spot for Linux feature parity and ease of use was a while ago. Back in the late 00s there was a beautiful moment where the hardware was standardized enough and the user-friendly distros were hassle-free enough that Linux had effective feature parity. Plus Windows was still fairly unstable and hacked-together, so it didn’t look great in side by side comparisons against competitors. The bummer then was that the software compatibility just wasn’t there to capitalize.
These days we have a lot better software parity, but the hardware support and streamlined UX have regressed a bit, partially because GPUs are kind of nuts now and GPU drivers are this gargantuan babel tower of per-game tweaks that needs constant support and display specs are kind of absurd as well. And because laptops are increasingly reliant on custom hardware and software, at least in mainstream brands that often don’t provide explicit Linux support. But also because the Linux community has been weirdly resistant to embracing baseline contemporary functionality, let’s be honest, particularly on the display side. In any case, it’s actually harder to migrate any given piece of kit to a Linux install seamlessly now than it was back then.
That bit of history, incidentally, also answering the first bit, because while Linux has never been marketed quite as aggressively as the paid alternatives, it is certainly no secret mystery. People were aware of it, it was often proposed as the fallback default install if you didn’t want Windows OEM fees and it’s had decades to spread via word of mouth. It’s just not kept up with the way modern computers are put together.
Lol it’s obviously disingenuous to even say Linux was marketed at all. But being disingenuous is your thing so it makes sense
It was marketed. Like I said above, I remember the Ubuntu launch being kind of a big deal and having a bit of messaging muscle behind it. I also have branded Red Hat install CDs in storage that seem to have been some sort of sponsorship or collab, which is a nice historical artifact. One kinda like this.
And then there were dedicated hobby magazines and sections in computing magazines and stuff like that. Most weren’t necessarily affiliated to any one company, but it was a thing you’d see in a magazine rack every now and then.
Obviously nothing on the level of the commercial, paid OS, but there have been multiple times where companies built around Linux did do some concerted promotion.
It is likely a fact that the majority of middle aged computer users have never even heard of Linux, but sure. Because redhat spent a few dollars a year on marketing, that’s definitely an apt comparison. Lmfao, disingenuous is the only word for you.
Look, you can try to reframe what I’m saying into entirely different arguments in your head as much as you want, but as you kept saying reading the previous posts is easy.
I’d be curious to see that poll, though. I’m liking my chances with millenials, honestly.
Just so I’m clear, here, your working hypothesis is that Linux isn’t more popular because people don’t know that it exists? Is that the idea? Like, if you ran ads for it on Youtube or something it’d skyrocket in usage?
I agree with some of your points but in this one and other comments you are referencing “data” multiple times to provide validity for your opinions, yet you either fail to understand what the data is able to measure or you are using it dishonestly to further your argument.
A usage percentage does not provide reliable data about the usability (“viability for the mainstream”). There are too many factors at play distorting it to make a reliable connection between these two.
The only way in which the percentage would be useful is, if you are implying that the other 96-99% chose to not use linux, because it doesn’t work for them, which is obviously not the case. Otherwise it is completely meaningless, as users were never exposed to linux, thus didn‘t have to make a decision, and thus didn’t deem another operating system superior.
There are a few objections along these lines in this thread, where the implication is that Linux is underused because it lacks awareness. Maybe it’s a generational thing? Linux has been around for a long time now, people are aware of it. There are multiple popular device lines out there that use it, several companies even put some marketing behind it.
I don’t know if you were there when Ubuntu first hit, but it was pretty widely reported. And that was twenty years ago. And of course Valve and Raspberry and Android and ChromeOs all were reported to carry flavours of Linux to the masses.
I mean, I’m sure a bigger, more coordinated marketing campaign would help, but it’s not a secret tucked away on nerdy cycles. I remember being in a college classroom in what? 2006? And when a professor didn’t know what Linux was the entire classroom laughed at them for reacting in disbelief at the notion that Linux was free (“so if something breaks who provides support?” I remember them asking, it was hilarious).
Look, it’s been a long time since you can just pull installation media of Linux from the Internet and just give it a try. Awareness is a factor, but it’s not THE reason Linux isn’t more widespread.
I disagree that the implication is only about lack of awareness. Further my point wasn’t that Linux is underused because of a lack of awareness. My point is that user popularity is not a valid measurement for usability.
Awareness definitely plays a role in user numbers but there are other more important factors. For example awareness of Linux doesn’t beat what comes preinstalled, this is a much bigger factor if we are talking about all desktop users in my opinion. Linux could have the best usability out of all desktop OS, most would still not change preinstalled OS for different reasons e.g. not knowledgeable enough, indifference etc… You might argue that if it was the OS it would come preinstalled, but then you would be ignoring the economic reasons that guide that. I still maintain that popularity of an OS is not a metric that can be used to infer usability. As long as there are different hurdles to getting to the actual using part, actual usability can‘t be determined by popularity.
On a side note about awareness:
It could very well be, or it could potentially be something geographical. Anecdotally in my friends group of university students(20-26year olds) in a non-technical-field, not a single Person (beside me) knew what Linux was, and most had never heard the term before I mentioned it in a conversation. Neither would my parents. So maybe not a generational thing. I think you might be viewing the extent of awareness from the eyes of someone broadly in the tech field?
For the record, in the anecdote in question the professor was teaching marketing in a non-tech degree, so I’m not sure about that one. The argument, IIRC was about them arguing that the Win95 launch campaign had been one of the, if not THE most successful marketing campaign ever, which all the millenials in the room were not having. Prof argued “nobody even knows what the second most successful PC OS would be” and the Linux incident happened. It was very funny.
Anyway, on the underlying point I agree that you could change the usage numbers in many ways, but the argument here is not that the low usage info proves the bad usability, necessarily. I’m saying the bad usability and compatibility issues are a major problem that makes the OS hard to embrace for most users. That’s the hypothesis. The info that after decades of public, free availability Linux remains a marginal choice is a piece of info that reinforces that hypothesis. It doesn’t prove it by itself, but it’s certainly very consistent with it.
I’d argue that the fact that Linux is free and it’s not preinstalled more often also reinforces that point. In fact some PC builders would offer it as a fallback if you didn’t want to pay for Windows, especially back in the 00s when the functionality gap was actually narrower than it is now, and that didn’t seem to help much, with most people still paying the fee to get a OEM Windows install.
But all of that is still indications we see in the market of the ripple effects of Linux’s reputation, which would be ripple effects of its UX and compatibility issues. It’s not the entire picture, but it sure fits in the picture, if you see what I’m saying.
That is not true though. The vast majority of people are people that don’t do much on their systems at all. Maybe look at Facebook or a few sites, write the occasional document or email and maybe play a few simple games. The type of people that have never heard of Linux or even know what an OS is let alone able to switch to another one. Those types of people will be perfectly happy on Linux if it came pre installed.
The people switching ATM and having issues are the highly technical people that have far more complex requirements and for those it does depend on the person and what they need to do.
The low percentage of users is not a sign of of it not being ready, just the sheer marketing and effort Microsoft has put into making windows the default option.
Again, same as the response above: that use case is covered in phones and tablets. Nobody who is just browsing the web is changing their entire OS. Especially if their main device is currently running Android or iPadOS/iOS. I am sure my parents could use Linux the same way they use their current device, but their current device is an Android tablet they know how to use and works just like their phone. I’m not switching them over for nerd bragging rights.
I mean, sure, they mostly would use a Linux device as a ChromeOS device (ChromeOS also at residual usage levels, incidentally), but it’s disingenuous to pretend articles like the one linked here are targeting those users, and it’s definitely not the focus for Linux desktop usage and development, either.
You just proved nous@programming.dev point. Android OS is a Linux kernel variant. Since it comes pre-installed, most users have no issue with it.
No no but see the narrative is that they are a completely neutral Linux user who just knows the truth that no one besides them would ever like Linux because reasons!
To suggest otherwise is straying from that narrative and that is not allowed. Bad XBeam!!
Man, I would love for desktop Linux to get to the level of Android when it comes to dedicated support. Are you kidding me? Hell, I was telling raging fanboy down there that I actually find desktop Android is a more reliable experience for light usage at this point. At least you have some expectation of universal app support across the ecosystem and the hardware comes pre-configured out of the box.
The problem is that a desktop OS is a much, much harder challenge. You’re not shipping a custom image dedicated to the specific piece of hardware and just ensuring all software runs in it, you have to provide a modular install that will not just adjust to whatever weird combo of hardware the user has at the time, but also support radical changes in that hardware going forward. It’s kinda nuts that computers ended up working that way.
But they do. And Windows handles it by way of being the default use case for all that hardware, so it gets all the third party support. And Apple doesn’t handle it because they ship their OS like phones ship their OSs, so they don’t have to.
But I’m telling you right now, the day the desktop Linux experience matches Android I will default to it, no questions asked, just like I did on my phone and on my tablet.
Well that’s unlikely to happen since Android is locked down spyware.
I’m not really seeing your point. You don’t have to use Linux and you are perfectly free to use whatever you want. The strange part is how you keep insisting that it is somehow behind. Linux for me is the only thing that works for me. Windows simply lacks a lot of the Linux feature set and apps. Plus I can’t stand ads, AI and other user hostile stuff. I straight up could not use Windows as it would slow me down.
Yeah I’m not going to lie that’s kind of a weird take.
By that logic captain crunch cereal isn’t ready for mainstream because it doesn’t have enough market share.
We may not be reading the word “mainstream” the same way here, because when you have a small oligopoly with one player at 75%, one at 15% and one at 4%… well, yeah, one of those is mainstream and one of those is not. That’s kind of how being mainstream works. Hell, that’s borderline monopolistic.
That’s not the same as a commodity where dozens or hundreds of options are available and compete on relatively equal footing. The comparison isn’t Captain Crunch versus Corn Flakes, it’s Coca-Cola versus Green Cola. I can find Green Cola in my supermarket… but it sure as hell isn’t the mainstream choice.
That’s different to “being ready for the mainstream”, though. Linux is not mainstream because it has big blockers that prevent it. The lack of readiness is a cause of the lack of mainstream appeal, not the other way around. For the same reason that Green Cola’s stevia-forward absolutely wild aftertaste is a cause of its lack of mainstream appeal.
I do realize not everybody will get this comparison, but if you know you know.
There are more people who only browse and use cross platform apps that don’t realise they could switch easily, than there are people for whom a switch would be problematic.
Windows has more supported software, but many people use a small range of common software. Gamers are just one niche. Just like you think Linux users are an echo chamber here, you are not considering the echo chamber of gamers you’re in that dont represent most windows users.
Honestly I’m waiting for a small company to license a Linux desktop to companies with support. It would need to be desktop focused and designed to be indestructible.
And those people have phones and iPads.
My concern isn’t gaming. If you do read what I wrote above, I actually say explicitly that gaming improvement is one of the more solid improvements on Linux recently.
The real problem isn’t PC gamers, who are typically tech savvy (although the issues with anticheat and display hardware compatibility are relevant for a big chunk of many millions of casual gamers). The problem is with people who use their PCs for work using unsupported software in Windows or Mac. Those people have no time for troubleshooting. One key piece of software doesn’t work or isn’t available? That’s a dealbreaker. One area of the setup has a problem that needs tinkering for troubleshooting? That’s a dealbreaker. I am using my computer to make money, I don’t have time for posturing. Either all the stuff I need works or it doesn’t.
Gaming is a problem, but it actually has a lot of people working to support it because at least one major company is betting on that to make money. Software and hardware compatibility doesn’t have the same corporate backing and it makes Linux impractical.
I’ve even known gen z people who would prefer a laptop because they are easier to reliably type on and have bigger screens, yet here you are denying that anyone wouldn’t just settle for the crippled experience of a shitty phone or tablet if they could opt for better. As if there aren’t millions of people who would prefer a desktop OS, because of several reasons, but having grown up with them as just being one of them.
You really have a rage boner for Linux.
That is barely a sentence, let alone a cogent argument.
We do have data on these things, we know how the market breaks down. For the record, the experience for tablet devices is way less crippled than you may remember if you haven’t used one in a while. The tablet my parents use has a very nice detachable keyboard and a dedicated desktop mode. For web applications there isn’t much difference from using a laptop, and they do appreciate the ability to use it as a screen with no keyboard for media consumption.
I have tried to get Linux running on a few PC hybrids and tablets, but most of them are a bit too quirky, and even the ones with some attempt at dedicated support from the community are a bit of a hassle, unfortunately.
Great, my grammar is somehow imperfect so you win. /s
Popularity is far from an indicator of preference. Tablets and phones are cheap and thus popular. Unfortunately I use both often for testing work stuff. It’s never fun. Typing on a touch screen is trash.
Yes, presumably that’s why they put a physical keyboard on the one I’m describing, along with all those other magnetic detachable keyboards they tend to ship these days.
Look, if you’re going to furiously argue with people on the Internet, it helps to read what they write to at least keep your responses vaguely consistent. It’s not a problem of grammar, this is barely a conversation now.
You still haven’t addressed the only point that matters. Most computing happens in a browser full stop, nothing else is relevant.
Well, yes, I have. That’s why reading what I say is important.
Most computing happens on a browser. Browsers, as it turns out, run on Windows and iOS and Android and Mac OS and everything else.
So if you do 80% of your computing on a browser and 20% natively, then you still have no reason to be on a OS that doesn’t do what you need for the other 20%. The right answer for light usage is whatever came preinstalled in your device (likely Windows, Android or iPadOS, if Chrome browsing is all you do).
So if nothing else is relevant that still doesn’t make Linux THE go-to or suitable for mainstream usage. It’s not preloaded in most devices, it is hard to get working well on the types of custom setups most mass market laptops ship with, it’s less convenient or outright incompatible on the mobile hardware casual users prefer and it’s extra work to set up in any case, which you’re not going to do if you’re a normie, because, again, all computers have browsers.
It’s a bizarre argument to begin with, and it’s definitely not the only thing that’s “relevant”.
Also, this is getting in the weeds, but I’ll point out that all my mobile devices will spit out HDR media out of a browser with little drama. Even Windows got there eventually. Seriously, how is it still so finicky in Linux? It’s been standardized and mainstream since 2016, at least.
It is not a problem of whether it works for most people or not. It is a cultural problem. People hate change. That’s largely why people hate windows 11 even.
And it even leads people to spend an hour arguing with strangers about how completely unacceptable Linux is for most people when there’s actually a lot of arguments against that and very few in favor of it.
Rage on. No one believes you’re unbiased lol