I'm genuinelly not sure if it's sarcasm or delusional.
Is fair to say that long term Linux users who are very proficiant in command line know that Linux will never have any relevence on the desktop and that the year of the Linux desktop is a delusional fantasy, it's never going to happen?
At this point it's humourous when there's some new feature in whichever distributon and someone says "Year of the desktop!", it's legitimately comical, if it's said to mock all of that talk
I also think "year of the desktop" is a unicorn (even if it were to come, you wouldn't pin it on one year - it's a process) and I personally believe that if Windows is going to die, it will be replaced by some web-only shit instead of another local desktop-based OS.
However, Linux desktop adoption did increase quite steeply in the past few years and to a point I confidently moved also my wife's and mother's computers to Linux because it actually causes me less headache than Windows did.
So, no need to be condescending and sarcastic about it.
ChromeOS has a massive market (10%-20% depending on who you ask) and that's basically linux with a chrome frontend.
So it really depends on what you mean by 'year of the desktop' as you can spin the definition either way.. either it'll never happen or it happened years ago.
Would you agree that what makes Linux laughable as a replacement for consumers is how splitered or fractured it is?
Although up to a certain point I believe the choice of GUI desktops to be a good thing, but I believe the only choices should be Plasma and Mate, with all the customization available for each one, the format for software insallation is what kills it. I never understood why when Linus started it, he never developed a built-in way of handling software installs along with tools for making changes to programs that got install.
Making people learn about which distribution they are using means it's better for them to forever stay on Windows where they can use any program they want without learning anything beyond looking for a Windows file to install.
As Theo de Raadt says, people want to use the software, not study it.
Would you agree that what makes Linux laughable as a replacement for consumers is how splitered or fractured it is?
Again, while you might have a point, your tone just sucks and makes me not want to interact with you.
Consumers can just pick one off-the-hook polished distro like Mint and are never even confronted with all the possible choices.
I was being sarcastic, tbh. I'm happy to see this (I use Linux everywhere), but I'm realistic. 3% doesn't look super impressive. I'm not sure where the line would be, though. 10%?
I would guess Linux desktop means nothing until it gets close to 15% for software developers to include a Linux version for new software releases, of any kind or type of software.
I do PC gaming and I only use Windows on that one gaming computer, so I can play any and all games, and have the best graphics hardware performance.
All of my other computers are only a mix of BSD and Linux, but for playing games I'm not willing to use anything other than Windows.
It seems to have grown enough that software like Zoom, MS Teams, Webex and Teamviewer all have versions available for the various linux OSs. If the market was so tiny no software developer would want to release these and handle bug reports, and fixes. It would just not viable. So there must be enough of a base that this is needed.
Yes, I know there is a market, as tiny as it is. Imagine how much further along corporate software for Linux would be if there was a single format for installing all software in a default configuration for a fresh Linux install.
I genuinelly don't understand why Linus never develeped a universal installer like .dmg, .msi, .exe, for Linux.
He was focused on the kernel, not the OS part unfortunately. Maybe Snap, Flatpak or AppImage will rise to the top for default install. For now I run OpenSUSE which has 1 click installer for rpms, probably as close to msi or exe there is right now.
I'm genuinelly not sure if it's sarcasm or delusional.
Is fair to say that long term Linux users who are very proficiant in command line know that Linux will never have any relevence on the desktop and that the year of the Linux desktop is a delusional fantasy, it's never going to happen?
At this point it's humourous when there's some new feature in whichever distributon and someone says "Year of the desktop!", it's legitimately comical, if it's said to mock all of that talk
I also think "year of the desktop" is a unicorn (even if it were to come, you wouldn't pin it on one year - it's a process) and I personally believe that if Windows is going to die, it will be replaced by some web-only shit instead of another local desktop-based OS.
However, Linux desktop adoption did increase quite steeply in the past few years and to a point I confidently moved also my wife's and mother's computers to Linux because it actually causes me less headache than Windows did.
So, no need to be condescending and sarcastic about it.
ChromeOS has a massive market (10%-20% depending on who you ask) and that's basically linux with a chrome frontend.
So it really depends on what you mean by 'year of the desktop' as you can spin the definition either way.. either it'll never happen or it happened years ago.
Would you agree that what makes Linux laughable as a replacement for consumers is how splitered or fractured it is?
Although up to a certain point I believe the choice of GUI desktops to be a good thing, but I believe the only choices should be Plasma and Mate, with all the customization available for each one, the format for software insallation is what kills it. I never understood why when Linus started it, he never developed a built-in way of handling software installs along with tools for making changes to programs that got install.
Making people learn about which distribution they are using means it's better for them to forever stay on Windows where they can use any program they want without learning anything beyond looking for a Windows file to install.
As Theo de Raadt says, people want to use the software, not study it.
Again, while you might have a point, your tone just sucks and makes me not want to interact with you.
Consumers can just pick one off-the-hook polished distro like Mint and are never even confronted with all the possible choices.
I was being sarcastic, tbh. I'm happy to see this (I use Linux everywhere), but I'm realistic. 3% doesn't look super impressive. I'm not sure where the line would be, though. 10%?
I would guess Linux desktop means nothing until it gets close to 15% for software developers to include a Linux version for new software releases, of any kind or type of software.
I do PC gaming and I only use Windows on that one gaming computer, so I can play any and all games, and have the best graphics hardware performance.
All of my other computers are only a mix of BSD and Linux, but for playing games I'm not willing to use anything other than Windows.
It seems to have grown enough that software like Zoom, MS Teams, Webex and Teamviewer all have versions available for the various linux OSs. If the market was so tiny no software developer would want to release these and handle bug reports, and fixes. It would just not viable. So there must be enough of a base that this is needed.
Yes, I know there is a market, as tiny as it is. Imagine how much further along corporate software for Linux would be if there was a single format for installing all software in a default configuration for a fresh Linux install.
I genuinelly don't understand why Linus never develeped a universal installer like .dmg, .msi, .exe, for Linux.
He was focused on the kernel, not the OS part unfortunately. Maybe Snap, Flatpak or AppImage will rise to the top for default install. For now I run OpenSUSE which has 1 click installer for rpms, probably as close to msi or exe there is right now.