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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.