You all keep saying it works but it still doesn't work with a whole load of software even with Wine.
If all you do is internet browsing then Linux is fine, but if you need specific software it can be a pain.
Yeah seriously lol that's what they were saying 20 friggin years ago and it was okay at best. Idk how it's come along since then but honestly Windows is quite stable now, I literally can't remember the last time I got a bsod or had any real issues. I used to screw around with different builds and dual booting, had strong opinions about which boot loader was best etc, these I just don't see the point. All I use my computer for is web browsing and excel.
They believe that if they say it enough times it might just magically happen.
Linux is not ready for prime time and to a large degree it is because of Linux users themselves who simply don't want to admit the massive usability and compatibility problems that their beloved OS has. If they can't admit it, then clearly it's not going to get fixed.
I don't think the usability problems with Linux are even visible to most Linux users. Most Linux users are probably either "at least mildly techy (and has been using Linux for a while)" or "just needs web and e-mails."
This, 100%. There has been serious progress in useability the past few years with distros like Zorin, but FOSS nerds are coming from a fundamentally different angle than people who are used to commercial software. Linux is extremely robust on the backend, but the frontend experience is still lacking for normal people.
Hopefully one day soon we can all meet in the middle. Once a distro comes about that's as (or more) consumer friendly than Windows/Mac, the commercial platforms will be quite literally unable to compete.
EDIT: I feel I should point out that "the year of the Linux server" arrived a long time ago.
The biggest evidence that Linux is not ready for prime time is the fact that it isn't in fact commonly used.
It's like saying that hyperloops are ready for prime time, you can tell that they're not by the evidence that they don't exist.
The Linux community has an excuse for that though... They keep using the excuse that Linux isn't preinstalled and that's why Linux adoption on the desktop is in single digit market share.
Now if Linux was so superior to Window like has been claimed and was indeed so easy to install, and it was able to be compatible with a variety of hardware and run all the software that one needs, then installing it on a PC would hardly stop computer nerds from doing it. But most of us don't bother because the advantages aren't worth the hassle.
That argument falls a bit with the Steam Deck. Linux is preinstalled and most people don't change the OS. On the other hand it's purpose is also pretty specific, so it isn't an issue if Adobe's softwares works etc.
But people are happy with ChromeOS, which is limited but preinstalled. So I do believe preinstalling makes and fails an OS. It's not even worth it for some car manufacturers to have different skews for chair heating, so it's not surprising that pc/laptops don't come with choices between different OS.
I'm happy with Linux, but I don't think most people want what Linux gives them. Most people just want to stop using it and do something fun.
What would it take for Linux to run all the hardware and software it needs? Companies need to make develop for Linux. In order for that to happen, Linux needs market share to make it profitable for them. But in order for Linux to gain market share, it needs to run all the hardware and software it needs. So in other words in order to get market share, Linux needs market share. How does it do that without being preinstalled on devices?
You are missing the most important issue:
WHY
Why would anyone want to waste their time with Linux when WIndows works perfectly fine?
They would for the same reason they use Linux on their Chromebooks, Android phones, Pixel watches, Steam Decks or TrueNAS server. It's pre-installed. Why do you think that argument is an "excuse" is my question.
No one would care if a Chromebook ran Linux, Windows, BeOS, AmigaOS or anything in between. The OS is a means to an end, something that the Linux community constantly forgets. People don't run an OS, they run software.
And how does Linux get software? I was discussing that two comments ago, we've now come full circle.
Why should software companies release a Linus version of a piece of software? Most don't bother with MacOS and they own about 20% of the desktop market. Linux is just 3%. They aren't going to do that out of the goodness of their hearts and this isn't a small ask, either. Would probably mean a total rewrite. To make matters worse is that Linux community seems to be all about free software, so getting them to actually PAY for something seems near impossible. So where does that leave you?
Why should software companies release a Linus version of a piece of software?
It isn't about supporting Linux, it's about supporting the hardware that comes with it on it. The Steam Deck demonstrates plainly that good hardware with Linux on it will receive dev attention. Game developers now talk and brag about "Steam Deck support" (which is actually just Linux support) for every major game release. It's not an "excuse", pre-installed Linux does work.
Most don’t bother with MacOS and they own about 20% of the desktop market. Linux is just 3%.
I have a hard time believing MacOS is even close to 20%. Hell on Steam Linux users outnumber Mac and the gaming demographic is lower on Linux to begin with. And lack of Mac software support is pretty obviously a result of them (fairly) recently dropping the x86 architecture, so companies have to remake a lot of software for them and it's not easy.
I don't see you proposing any solutions to this problem. So your opinion is Linux just doomed forever? Microsoft owns this market and that's it, competition isn't possible and the world has to use their closed source operating system for the rest of time?
Works for me. I have zero time to waste on Linux. I know Windows. I use Windows and have few problems with it. I am Average Joe Computer User. You have yet to give me a single reason why I would ever care enough to use Linux other than some "Grrrrr M$ IS BAD" reason. Why should I?
What's wrong with monopolies?
Why should I value my privacy?
Why should I use code that is open and freely auditable instead of closed and proprietary?
Why should I have more ownership of my computer?
These are the questions you are essentially asking, and while I could write a whole treatise on it I doubt you would change your mind anyway. Enjoy using Windows.
it still doesn't work with a whole load of software even with Wine.
I don't think being able to run programs designed and compiled for windows is a requirement to be considered a usable os. For example, you can not run safari on windows. Does this mean windows doesn't count as a usable os?
I think the definition of useable should be that software exists that can do the kind of things you want to do on your computer. In that sense, Linux is perfecty useable on the desktop, at least for people who have similar computing requirements to me.
No. It. Doesn't
You all keep saying it works but it still doesn't work with a whole load of software even with Wine.
If all you do is internet browsing then Linux is fine, but if you need specific software it can be a pain.
Yeah seriously lol that's what they were saying 20 friggin years ago and it was okay at best. Idk how it's come along since then but honestly Windows is quite stable now, I literally can't remember the last time I got a bsod or had any real issues. I used to screw around with different builds and dual booting, had strong opinions about which boot loader was best etc, these I just don't see the point. All I use my computer for is web browsing and excel.
They believe that if they say it enough times it might just magically happen.
Linux is not ready for prime time and to a large degree it is because of Linux users themselves who simply don't want to admit the massive usability and compatibility problems that their beloved OS has. If they can't admit it, then clearly it's not going to get fixed.
I don't think the usability problems with Linux are even visible to most Linux users. Most Linux users are probably either "at least mildly techy (and has been using Linux for a while)" or "just needs web and e-mails."
This, 100%. There has been serious progress in useability the past few years with distros like Zorin, but FOSS nerds are coming from a fundamentally different angle than people who are used to commercial software. Linux is extremely robust on the backend, but the frontend experience is still lacking for normal people.
Hopefully one day soon we can all meet in the middle. Once a distro comes about that's as (or more) consumer friendly than Windows/Mac, the commercial platforms will be quite literally unable to compete.
EDIT: I feel I should point out that "the year of the Linux server" arrived a long time ago.
The biggest evidence that Linux is not ready for prime time is the fact that it isn't in fact commonly used.
It's like saying that hyperloops are ready for prime time, you can tell that they're not by the evidence that they don't exist.
The Linux community has an excuse for that though... They keep using the excuse that Linux isn't preinstalled and that's why Linux adoption on the desktop is in single digit market share.
Now if Linux was so superior to Window like has been claimed and was indeed so easy to install, and it was able to be compatible with a variety of hardware and run all the software that one needs, then installing it on a PC would hardly stop computer nerds from doing it. But most of us don't bother because the advantages aren't worth the hassle.
That argument falls a bit with the Steam Deck. Linux is preinstalled and most people don't change the OS. On the other hand it's purpose is also pretty specific, so it isn't an issue if Adobe's softwares works etc.
But people are happy with ChromeOS, which is limited but preinstalled. So I do believe preinstalling makes and fails an OS. It's not even worth it for some car manufacturers to have different skews for chair heating, so it's not surprising that pc/laptops don't come with choices between different OS.
I'm happy with Linux, but I don't think most people want what Linux gives them. Most people just want to stop using it and do something fun.
What would it take for Linux to run all the hardware and software it needs? Companies need to make develop for Linux. In order for that to happen, Linux needs market share to make it profitable for them. But in order for Linux to gain market share, it needs to run all the hardware and software it needs. So in other words in order to get market share, Linux needs market share. How does it do that without being preinstalled on devices?
You are missing the most important issue:
WHY
Why would anyone want to waste their time with Linux when WIndows works perfectly fine?
They would for the same reason they use Linux on their Chromebooks, Android phones, Pixel watches, Steam Decks or TrueNAS server. It's pre-installed. Why do you think that argument is an "excuse" is my question.
No one would care if a Chromebook ran Linux, Windows, BeOS, AmigaOS or anything in between. The OS is a means to an end, something that the Linux community constantly forgets. People don't run an OS, they run software.
And how does Linux get software? I was discussing that two comments ago, we've now come full circle.
Why should software companies release a Linus version of a piece of software? Most don't bother with MacOS and they own about 20% of the desktop market. Linux is just 3%. They aren't going to do that out of the goodness of their hearts and this isn't a small ask, either. Would probably mean a total rewrite. To make matters worse is that Linux community seems to be all about free software, so getting them to actually PAY for something seems near impossible. So where does that leave you?
It isn't about supporting Linux, it's about supporting the hardware that comes with it on it. The Steam Deck demonstrates plainly that good hardware with Linux on it will receive dev attention. Game developers now talk and brag about "Steam Deck support" (which is actually just Linux support) for every major game release. It's not an "excuse", pre-installed Linux does work.
I have a hard time believing MacOS is even close to 20%. Hell on Steam Linux users outnumber Mac and the gaming demographic is lower on Linux to begin with. And lack of Mac software support is pretty obviously a result of them (fairly) recently dropping the x86 architecture, so companies have to remake a lot of software for them and it's not easy.
I don't see you proposing any solutions to this problem. So your opinion is Linux just doomed forever? Microsoft owns this market and that's it, competition isn't possible and the world has to use their closed source operating system for the rest of time?
Works for me. I have zero time to waste on Linux. I know Windows. I use Windows and have few problems with it. I am Average Joe Computer User. You have yet to give me a single reason why I would ever care enough to use Linux other than some "Grrrrr M$ IS BAD" reason. Why should I?
These are the questions you are essentially asking, and while I could write a whole treatise on it I doubt you would change your mind anyway. Enjoy using Windows.
I don't think being able to run programs designed and compiled for windows is a requirement to be considered a usable os. For example, you can not run safari on windows. Does this mean windows doesn't count as a usable os?
I think the definition of useable should be that software exists that can do the kind of things you want to do on your computer. In that sense, Linux is perfecty useable on the desktop, at least for people who have similar computing requirements to me.