6 ms·

> Given the disaster that has been Windows over the last few years, and that Apple hardware is often out of the price range of the average user, Linux should be

> Given the disaster that has been Windows over the last few years, and that Apple hardware is often out of the price range of the average user, Linux should be primed to take over the market. I feel similarly. I'm a big Mac fan, but I'm confused why Linux isn't the obvious alternative. I'm guessing the issues are the following: 1) PCs/Laptops to consumers ship with Windows installed by default, likely a distribution partnership w/ Microsoft 2) Popular games run best on Windows Problem (1) is difficult because of Microsoft's deep pockets. But it feels like it's possible to attack problem (2). The gaming industry has huge sway on the market. For example, many serious gamers build their own rigs. If gaming companies introduce an open standard that Windows OS's need to abide by to build games, then.... maybe Linux can benefit as well? I suspect this hugely benefits gaming companies too, because they would be able to develop on open source technology and not have to test their builds on proprietary technology. Honestly, that workflow sounds miserable AND expensive.

Jtsummers 8y ago
Linux has too many options. Mainstream users want to be able to get the same thing (or near it) on every computer they use. If I install Linux and you install Linux, are they the same? Maybe. But if we both install Windows or both install macOS? Yes. These options become intimidating. It's the same reason many people stuck with Windows XP until their computers caught fire or whatever other reasons they had to finally abandon it. Gaming is also a factor. A better gaming story would drive up adoption amongst gamers and maybe spread to the people in their circles. But you'd have to have one or two distros that were particularly good for gaming that the majority of them used.
- freedomben 8y ago
  > Linux has too many options. Mainstream users want to be able to get the same thing (or near it) on every computer they use. While I personally rejoice at the choice, unfortunately I believe you are right. I have switched quite a few people to Linux, technical and non-technical. The technical people tend to get excited about choice, and sometimes go read for hours on the different DE options. Non-technical people get a look of anxiety on their face, and even a little panic. I started defaulting *younger users to Gnome 3 and older users to MATE, and it has been a terrific decision.
- misterbowfinger 8y ago
  > But you'd have to have one or two distros that were particularly good for gaming that the majority of them used Right, that's probably closer to what I'm getting at. There's probably always going to be a bunch of options for Linux, but there should (?) be a few main ones for most people. And then anyone who wants to customize can then customize to their liking. But it'll all be open source, not proprietary
cco 8y ago
I think you maybe don't use Linux or Windows 10? Windows 10 is still far and away more friendly and presents a much better user experience than Linux. Linux will be the "obvious alternative" when the software actually works with off the shelf consumer hardware, compiling your own drivers based off of something you've downloaded from github is a non-starter, and getting things like waking from standby to work isn't a series of frustrating googles. If you're into computers, not using them as tools just into them in general Linux is fine. But Linux is not ready for someone who is uninterested in how computers work.
- interfixus 8y ago
  Clearly a matter of perspective. Happily living in Xfce-land on my various Arch-boxes, my rare excursions into the world of Windows are always occasions for disbelief: 'Do people actually live with this, day in and day out?'. The prescribed choices, the licensing popups, the installation and upgrade rigmarole, the opaque policy management, the dependency hell, the anti-virus idiocy, and the Mickey Mouse conventions of the file system. Please, take me home to sanity. But as I said - perspective. I must assume it all somehow makes a kind of sense if you're really into it, and that pacman -Syu could equally freak you out if you came visiting to my side. Windows users rarely do, though.
  - free652 8y ago
    Um the dependency hell is not something I have seen in Windows, but quiet often in Linux. For my desktops I just want for the system to work and not try to figure out why the new kernel broke my video drivers again.
    - orwin 8y ago
      > Um the dependency hell is not something I have seen in Windows, but quiet often in Linux. You never had to install 2 different version of php with IIS. My worst internship by far, it took us almost 3 week to get my workstation to work, and my coworkers were windows powerusers. I'd rather spend multiple times 10 minutes to resolve dependency hell than spend again 3*40 hours doing the same thing, just with no understnding of what i'm doing.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
3) Hardware support is dependent on kernel version, regressions occur. 4) There isn't a universal anything. There's no base system for developers to depend on, there's no consistency to the interfaces, widgets, clipboard behavior, or anything else. 5) Pretending there is no line between "system" and "application" and relying on a package manager and repositories is a terrible paradigm with a long list of problems roundly dismissed and ignored by the community. 6) The community is terrible. If you have any issues you'll be told you're using the wrong distro (no matter which distro it is), you should read the manual (even if you did), you don't really want to do that (I do, actually), "normal people" don't do that (I care why?), and finally that the source is available and you can fix it yourself. 7) The whole system is a gigantic Rube Goldberg machine of disparate components developed largely in isolation and slapped together by whoever decided to build a distro today. And probably about a hundred other reasons. But rather than try to solve any of them the Linux desktop community prefers to pretend that they don't exist, and the REAL problem is that Microsoft is a bully and won't let companies install Linux by default or something. This guy maintains a more comprehensive list: https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.t... To be fair, some small progress has been made and Windows is currently being sabotaged by Microsoft, so Linux Desktop may yet win by default.
- flukus 8y ago
  > And probably about a hundred other reasons. But rather than try to solve any of them the Linux desktop community prefers to pretend that they don't exist, and the REAL problem is that Microsoft is a bully and won't let companies install Linux by default or something. At least with 4, 5 and 7 they don't get solved because they are also strengths and a large part of the reason linux is so successful. I also don't see why you complain about package management but also complain about it being a rube goldberg machine, the former fixes much of the later which is still an issue with windows.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    > linux is so successful In the server and single-purpose appliance market. Otherwise you're talking about Android, which doesn't use a package manager, in the traditional sense, to install applications. > I also don't see why you complain about package management but also complain about it being a rube goldberg machine, the former fixes much of the later which is still an issue with windows. The former is utterly unnecessary if your system isn't a Rube Goldberg machine slapped together from disparate components. Windows installers may suck too, but that's just whataboutism. There is absolutely no reason that application management should require anything other than simple every day file management utilities like "copy" and "delete". See: DOS, RiscOS, MacOS classic, NeXTStep Application Bundles (inherited by modern MacOS), Rox Filer AppDirs, and AppImage.

Jtsummers 8y ago

Linux has too many options. Mainstream users want to be able to get the same thing (or near it) on every computer they use. If I install Linux and you install Linux, are they the same? Maybe. But if we both install Windows or both install macOS? Yes. These options become intimidating. It's the same reason many people stuck with Windows XP until their computers caught fire or whatever other reasons they had to finally abandon it. Gaming is also a factor. A better gaming story would drive up adoption amongst gamers and maybe spread to the people in their circles. But you'd have to have one or two distros that were particularly good for gaming that the majority of them used.

freedomben 8y ago
> Linux has too many options. Mainstream users want to be able to get the same thing (or near it) on every computer they use. While I personally rejoice at the choice, unfortunately I believe you are right. I have switched quite a few people to Linux, technical and non-technical. The technical people tend to get excited about choice, and sometimes go read for hours on the different DE options. Non-technical people get a look of anxiety on their face, and even a little panic. I started defaulting *younger users to Gnome 3 and older users to MATE, and it has been a terrific decision.
misterbowfinger 8y ago
> But you'd have to have one or two distros that were particularly good for gaming that the majority of them used Right, that's probably closer to what I'm getting at. There's probably always going to be a bunch of options for Linux, but there should (?) be a few main ones for most people. And then anyone who wants to customize can then customize to their liking. But it'll all be open source, not proprietary

cco 8y ago

I think you maybe don't use Linux or Windows 10? Windows 10 is still far and away more friendly and presents a much better user experience than Linux. Linux will be the "obvious alternative" when the software actually works with off the shelf consumer hardware, compiling your own drivers based off of something you've downloaded from github is a non-starter, and getting things like waking from standby to work isn't a series of frustrating googles. If you're into computers, not using them as tools just into them in general Linux is fine. But Linux is not ready for someone who is uninterested in how computers work.

interfixus 8y ago
Clearly a matter of perspective. Happily living in Xfce-land on my various Arch-boxes, my rare excursions into the world of Windows are always occasions for disbelief: 'Do people actually live with this, day in and day out?'. The prescribed choices, the licensing popups, the installation and upgrade rigmarole, the opaque policy management, the dependency hell, the anti-virus idiocy, and the Mickey Mouse conventions of the file system. Please, take me home to sanity. But as I said - perspective. I must assume it all somehow makes a kind of sense if you're really into it, and that pacman -Syu could equally freak you out if you came visiting to my side. Windows users rarely do, though.
- free652 8y ago
  Um the dependency hell is not something I have seen in Windows, but quiet often in Linux. For my desktops I just want for the system to work and not try to figure out why the new kernel broke my video drivers again.
  - orwin 8y ago
    > Um the dependency hell is not something I have seen in Windows, but quiet often in Linux. You never had to install 2 different version of php with IIS. My worst internship by far, it took us almost 3 week to get my workstation to work, and my coworkers were windows powerusers. I'd rather spend multiple times 10 minutes to resolve dependency hell than spend again 3*40 hours doing the same thing, just with no understnding of what i'm doing.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

3) Hardware support is dependent on kernel version, regressions occur. 4) There isn't a universal anything. There's no base system for developers to depend on, there's no consistency to the interfaces, widgets, clipboard behavior, or anything else. 5) Pretending there is no line between "system" and "application" and relying on a package manager and repositories is a terrible paradigm with a long list of problems roundly dismissed and ignored by the community. 6) The community is terrible. If you have any issues you'll be told you're using the wrong distro (no matter which distro it is), you should read the manual (even if you did), you don't really want to do that (I do, actually), "normal people" don't do that (I care why?), and finally that the source is available and you can fix it yourself. 7) The whole system is a gigantic Rube Goldberg machine of disparate components developed largely in isolation and slapped together by whoever decided to build a distro today. And probably about a hundred other reasons. But rather than try to solve any of them the Linux desktop community prefers to pretend that they don't exist, and the REAL problem is that Microsoft is a bully and won't let companies install Linux by default or something. This guy maintains a more comprehensive list: https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.t... To be fair, some small progress has been made and Windows is currently being sabotaged by Microsoft, so Linux Desktop may yet win by default.

flukus 8y ago
> And probably about a hundred other reasons. But rather than try to solve any of them the Linux desktop community prefers to pretend that they don't exist, and the REAL problem is that Microsoft is a bully and won't let companies install Linux by default or something. At least with 4, 5 and 7 they don't get solved because they are also strengths and a large part of the reason linux is so successful. I also don't see why you complain about package management but also complain about it being a rube goldberg machine, the former fixes much of the later which is still an issue with windows.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > linux is so successful In the server and single-purpose appliance market. Otherwise you're talking about Android, which doesn't use a package manager, in the traditional sense, to install applications. > I also don't see why you complain about package management but also complain about it being a rube goldberg machine, the former fixes much of the later which is still an issue with windows. The former is utterly unnecessary if your system isn't a Rube Goldberg machine slapped together from disparate components. Windows installers may suck too, but that's just whataboutism. There is absolutely no reason that application management should require anything other than simple every day file management utilities like "copy" and "delete". See: DOS, RiscOS, MacOS classic, NeXTStep Application Bundles (inherited by modern MacOS), Rox Filer AppDirs, and AppImage.