This is actually awesome to see. Sadly the main thing holding Linux back is still just momentum. And for a lot of people MS word. Even if the free suites are pretty good nowadays.
There are many things which are holding mass Linux adoption: hardware comparability, too many distros, hard to find and install software (no one cares about your package manager), lack of proprietary software, the list goes on. A lot of that could be resolved by third party developers, but Linux is a moving target and software development is a nightmare.
I was on Slashdot circa 1998 and people back then kept saying mainstream adoption was right around the corner. Meanwhile, 25 years later, the core barriers to entry have yet to be addressed. But Linux is gonna hit the mainstream any day now!
I think the reason for that disconnect is that what a typical Linux user wants is very different from the mainstream desktop user. Linux users want flexibility and freedom, and they don't mind getting their hands dirty and doing a little research to get there. They're also patient with setbacks because they believe in FOSS and their privacy.
Now, the Steam Deck's success, I think, happens in spite of Linux. It's a closed environnement with a very specific target hardware, so none of the usual problems with a desktop distro are gonna show up. And I'm not even sure that many Deck users realize they're running games on Linux, to be honest. The Steam wrapper is really its own thing.
I do wish Linux would make serious headway in the desktop space... It's just frustrating to see that, 25 years on, the main strategy remains crossing fingers and whispering "any day now."
But a lot of things changed in these years. Installing software, for example, became so easy using the gnome store, that it lowered a lot the entry barrier.
The few times I find myself using windows, I realize it's not easy to use, as many claim. I believe it's mostly a matter of a computer culture that created around it, and changing cultural traits is really hard
Nothing has really changed. Imagine a typical user. You give them Linux, the user plugs their Blu Ray to watch a movie, distro complains about freedom and DRM, the user throws Linux away.
No one gives a shit about open source philosophy or other esoteric bullshit, people just need to do cool stuff, do their jobs and watch movies. Gnome store is useless. Come back once I can install Photoshop on Linux directly from Adobe Web site.
With all the respect, to deny the progress we had in the last decade seems a bit stubbornish and counterproductive.
In the 2000s, uo to early 2010s, not even a basic non techy user could properly use linux without assistance, and nowadays, they can use it normally. Most of them just need a working browser and a good UI.
I don't say that out of nowhere. I've been doing some work in initiatives for digital inclusion in my country, and we're having great results with linux nowadays, while it was impossible some years ago.
There's still a lot that needs improvement, but we're nowhere near the state we were just one decade ago.
Which progress? None of the professional software is available for Linux still, you still can't watch 4K Netflix on Linux, etc, etc.
Accurate. I used various Linux distros as my daily driver for 15 years (2004-2019), and I swear things are going backwards. I held out a little hope that Ubuntu was going to change everything for the better, but things aren't getting any better. I bought a laptop from System76 in 2018 and had driver issues because the hardware was too new, which I was hoping to avoid by buying from a Linux-first company. Also, why the hell are they still selling laptops with nvidia built in?
The Linux fanboys can deny these problems all they want, but too many still think the only way to use a computer is to make it as hard as possible for Linux to ever become mainstream. Android took off because it has an intuitive GUI in spite of being based on Linux.
You can install mint or Ubuntu on your grandma's laptop these days and she will have fewer issues than she had on Windows. I game on Linux and 95% of the time i just install and it runs.
I wouldn't say it's ready for your average user yet, but to say it's the same as it's always been is just incorrect.
Desktop Linux distros are playing catch up. Yeah, you can finally browse the internet, cool stuff! Now go watch 4K on Netflix. Maybe your grandma would be fine today, I don't know. But a lot of people still need MS Office, for example. A lot of people still need to play DRM protected content. A lot of people still play games with anti-cheat. A lot of people still have printers which don't work correctly under Linux.
Meanwhile Windows literally has zero issues. For many years now. Or MacOS. Linux will never be ready, because being ready is a moving target.
What should happen is simple: one single distro, all proprietary tech included by default, kernel ABI frozen for a reasonably long time, and user land should have backwards compatibility for at least five years.
Agreed on most points, but if you try to do anything unusual on Steam Deck like install Heroic Launcher or get emulators working, you fully realize you are on Linux.
How many Nintendo Switch users install non sanctioned emulators and launchers? No one cares about this stuff, people just want to play games on the go. And Steam Deck delivers exactly that.
Don't forget accessibility. Vision, motor, etc. sorry but the state of most of that is not so good right now.
Linux is a moving target
Could you clarify what you mean with this?
Not the person you're replying to, but Linux has long had a policy of "F backwards compatibility" in the userspace. Try running a 10 year old binary on the current version of a distro. Try a 5 year old binary. Chances are, it's not going to work, or you're going to go through dependency hell trying to get the correct library versions for that old binary.
But notice how Windows 11 can run a Windows XP app.
That's the problem. Most users aren't going to want to compile from source, assuming the software they're trying to use is even open source. Hell, nvidia users constantly have driver issues because the binary blobs must be updated to continue working after kernel updates. And that's not to mention all the competing package managers and distro quirks with library versions and naming.
You can run 16 bit Windows 3.0 apps on Windows 10 on compatible hardware. Can I run any Linux application compiled 20+ years ago on any modern distro without any fuckery? No. I can't even run apps compiled for the latest Arch on the latest Ubuntu, lol. Software development for Linux is a total nightmare.
This is true, but kind of exaggerated. I can't run some windows 7 apps on Windows 10. I have been able to run some backalley Linux software from an html 1.0 site designed in the 90's no problem.
On both platforms backwards compatibility is a little hit or miss, but yeah Linux is worse.
Yes, some apps might not run. Yet some Win16 do actually run on Windows 10.
The main thing holding linux back is a lack of federal contracts.
Until schools are issuing Linux machines to staff and students. Until military outposts are run on Linux servers. Until your average federal employee is being issued a Linux machine, Linux will always be 3rd place.
And why are federal contracts being issues out for Linux for general users? Because of lack of Ms office
No it’s because of lobbying. Other countries use LibreOffice.
I mean, LibreOffice is usable, but if I could pay for a linux license of Word or Excel, I would pay for it. The UX is just so much better with feature search/animations/plugin support/etc.
Almost like Libre Office isn't free!
But yeah, u right
Schools are handing out Linux to students...just not GNU/Linux; a lot of schools opt for Chrome OS which uses the Linux kernel.
Linux is already the market leader in every computing segment except desktops (even mobile when you factor in Android.)
I figured they just meant that people in government jobs don't like change.
This is actually awesome to see. Sadly the main thing holding Linux back is still just momentum. And for a lot of people MS word. Even if the free suites are pretty good nowadays.
There are many things which are holding mass Linux adoption: hardware comparability, too many distros, hard to find and install software (no one cares about your package manager), lack of proprietary software, the list goes on. A lot of that could be resolved by third party developers, but Linux is a moving target and software development is a nightmare.
I was on Slashdot circa 1998 and people back then kept saying mainstream adoption was right around the corner. Meanwhile, 25 years later, the core barriers to entry have yet to be addressed. But Linux is gonna hit the mainstream any day now!
I think the reason for that disconnect is that what a typical Linux user wants is very different from the mainstream desktop user. Linux users want flexibility and freedom, and they don't mind getting their hands dirty and doing a little research to get there. They're also patient with setbacks because they believe in FOSS and their privacy.
Now, the Steam Deck's success, I think, happens in spite of Linux. It's a closed environnement with a very specific target hardware, so none of the usual problems with a desktop distro are gonna show up. And I'm not even sure that many Deck users realize they're running games on Linux, to be honest. The Steam wrapper is really its own thing.
I do wish Linux would make serious headway in the desktop space... It's just frustrating to see that, 25 years on, the main strategy remains crossing fingers and whispering "any day now."
But a lot of things changed in these years. Installing software, for example, became so easy using the gnome store, that it lowered a lot the entry barrier.
The few times I find myself using windows, I realize it's not easy to use, as many claim. I believe it's mostly a matter of a computer culture that created around it, and changing cultural traits is really hard
Nothing has really changed. Imagine a typical user. You give them Linux, the user plugs their Blu Ray to watch a movie, distro complains about freedom and DRM, the user throws Linux away.
No one gives a shit about open source philosophy or other esoteric bullshit, people just need to do cool stuff, do their jobs and watch movies. Gnome store is useless. Come back once I can install Photoshop on Linux directly from Adobe Web site.
With all the respect, to deny the progress we had in the last decade seems a bit stubbornish and counterproductive.
In the 2000s, uo to early 2010s, not even a basic non techy user could properly use linux without assistance, and nowadays, they can use it normally. Most of them just need a working browser and a good UI.
I don't say that out of nowhere. I've been doing some work in initiatives for digital inclusion in my country, and we're having great results with linux nowadays, while it was impossible some years ago.
There's still a lot that needs improvement, but we're nowhere near the state we were just one decade ago.
Which progress? None of the professional software is available for Linux still, you still can't watch 4K Netflix on Linux, etc, etc.
Accurate. I used various Linux distros as my daily driver for 15 years (2004-2019), and I swear things are going backwards. I held out a little hope that Ubuntu was going to change everything for the better, but things aren't getting any better. I bought a laptop from System76 in 2018 and had driver issues because the hardware was too new, which I was hoping to avoid by buying from a Linux-first company. Also, why the hell are they still selling laptops with nvidia built in?
The Linux fanboys can deny these problems all they want, but too many still think the only way to use a computer is to make it as hard as possible for Linux to ever become mainstream. Android took off because it has an intuitive GUI in spite of being based on Linux.
You can install mint or Ubuntu on your grandma's laptop these days and she will have fewer issues than she had on Windows. I game on Linux and 95% of the time i just install and it runs.
I wouldn't say it's ready for your average user yet, but to say it's the same as it's always been is just incorrect.
Desktop Linux distros are playing catch up. Yeah, you can finally browse the internet, cool stuff! Now go watch 4K on Netflix. Maybe your grandma would be fine today, I don't know. But a lot of people still need MS Office, for example. A lot of people still need to play DRM protected content. A lot of people still play games with anti-cheat. A lot of people still have printers which don't work correctly under Linux.
Meanwhile Windows literally has zero issues. For many years now. Or MacOS. Linux will never be ready, because being ready is a moving target.
What should happen is simple: one single distro, all proprietary tech included by default, kernel ABI frozen for a reasonably long time, and user land should have backwards compatibility for at least five years.
Lost it on "Windows with literally 0 issues" lol
Agreed on most points, but if you try to do anything unusual on Steam Deck like install Heroic Launcher or get emulators working, you fully realize you are on Linux.
How many Nintendo Switch users install non sanctioned emulators and launchers? No one cares about this stuff, people just want to play games on the go. And Steam Deck delivers exactly that.
Don't forget accessibility. Vision, motor, etc. sorry but the state of most of that is not so good right now.
Could you clarify what you mean with this?
Not the person you're replying to, but Linux has long had a policy of "F backwards compatibility" in the userspace. Try running a 10 year old binary on the current version of a distro. Try a 5 year old binary. Chances are, it's not going to work, or you're going to go through dependency hell trying to get the correct library versions for that old binary.
But notice how Windows 11 can run a Windows XP app.
That's the problem. Most users aren't going to want to compile from source, assuming the software they're trying to use is even open source. Hell, nvidia users constantly have driver issues because the binary blobs must be updated to continue working after kernel updates. And that's not to mention all the competing package managers and distro quirks with library versions and naming.
You can run 16 bit Windows 3.0 apps on Windows 10 on compatible hardware. Can I run any Linux application compiled 20+ years ago on any modern distro without any fuckery? No. I can't even run apps compiled for the latest Arch on the latest Ubuntu, lol. Software development for Linux is a total nightmare.
This is true, but kind of exaggerated. I can't run some windows 7 apps on Windows 10. I have been able to run some backalley Linux software from an html 1.0 site designed in the 90's no problem.
On both platforms backwards compatibility is a little hit or miss, but yeah Linux is worse.
Yes, some apps might not run. Yet some Win16 do actually run on Windows 10.
The main thing holding linux back is a lack of federal contracts.
Until schools are issuing Linux machines to staff and students. Until military outposts are run on Linux servers. Until your average federal employee is being issued a Linux machine, Linux will always be 3rd place.
And why are federal contracts being issues out for Linux for general users? Because of lack of Ms office
No it’s because of lobbying. Other countries use LibreOffice.
I mean, LibreOffice is usable, but if I could pay for a linux license of Word or Excel, I would pay for it. The UX is just so much better with feature search/animations/plugin support/etc.
Almost like Libre Office isn't free!
But yeah, u right
Schools are handing out Linux to students...just not GNU/Linux; a lot of schools opt for Chrome OS which uses the Linux kernel.
Linux is already the market leader in every computing segment except desktops (even mobile when you factor in Android.)
I figured they just meant that people in government jobs don't like change.
No MS office, no sale!