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.
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.
All you have to do is switch. With products like Ubuntu, there’s no reason not to. It. Just. Works.
People who say that severely underestimate the time, effort, and expertise they’ve accumulated that makes it easy for themselves, but hard for others.
I tried to switch once before COVID. It was horrible. Oh, I now need to learn about file systems and NTFS and ext3/4(?) - i guess i’ll try Linux on a separate, old hard drive. Ok, something didn’t work, I now have to figure out what driver wasn’t supported and what I need to download. Great, people on forums are helpful but they’re asking me a bunch of gibberish. Now I gotta figure out this command line thing. Oh cool some people built GUIs for certain stuff so i don’t need to play with the command line, but then the GUI doesn’t work occasionally and now I have to figure out if it’s the GUI that broke or something else. And then at some point I got stuck because of file permissions.
Unsurprisingly, I’m back on Windows. It sucks, but at least it really just works.
For majority of people, an OS isn’t something they want to think about, nor something they know a lot about. For example, I’m not a gearhead, so when I buy a car, I just want to drive it off the lot on Day 1 - sure not everything is perfect the way I want it, but i don’t need to do anything if I don’t want to. I don’t want to buy a shell of a car and have to go to 5 different shops to choose a tire, install my own seats, get used to the stick shift being on the roof of the car instead of beside me, and have it break down on me all the time because “you aren’t using it right”.
It all depends on your hardware. If you run standard hardware with an AMD card, all the drivers you need should (theoretically) be in the kernel and will magically just work. As soon as you start using running hardware with proprietary drivers then you have to put in a little effort. Might require you to install separate package(s) from a third-party repo or something, and that will require terminal. It’s just three commands usually: add the repo -> update your package manager -> install the driver. Not hard but if you are used to the Windows way of doing things it can be intimidating.
Even still, some stuff just doesn’t have Linux support at all or it’s completely community-maintained. If every company just open sourced their drivers and did things the “Linux” way then there would be no issue but unfortunately Linux doesn’t have the market share for those companies to care. So you get into the negative feedback loop of: Linux has low market share because of lack of support, and companies don’t support Linux because of low market share.
Valve has done amazing work with Steam Play. Seeing how well the steam deck plays games convinced me not to put windows on my new rig.
I don’t agree, however, that it just works. My graphics card needed a mess driver outside of the default repos for Ubuntu lts, and my gpu has been out for almost a year.
I also have one high dpi monitor and one standard-ish dpi monitor, and scaling them independently, moving windows back and forth, and going into and out of full screen games all produce undesired behavior. It’s annoying enough that I now just use one monitor.
Ubuntu LTS is generally used for servers, but if you are going to game on it you should consider using a container such as flatpak. It will share a kernel with your host OS (so if you need a newer kernel you are out of luck) but will be packaged with a newer version of Mesa. Installing drivers outside of the official repos can be a PITA because you often have to re-do everything when you upgrade your OS.
edit: should mention flatpak won’t make your OS work itself. You’ll need a newer distro for that. Ubuntu only gets major software updates for six months until the next release, everything after is minor adjustments like security updates and bug fixes.
I’m usually not on this community and just wanted to make a sarcastic play on your words.
E.g. if your in computer science it’s almost a requirement to be comfortable around Linux and it’s up to anyone if they want to use it bare metal or in a VM on Windows. So I agree that my comment was wrong but that also applies to yours. Anyones OS choice depends on the application you want to run.
That’s why I definitely won’t recommend anyone using Adobe and other creative software to use Linux.
Now there’s lih-nux or lie-nux
I don’t know how you say it
Or how you install it, or use it, or play it
Or where you download it, or what programs run
But lih-nux, or lie-nux, don’t look like much fun
However you say it, it’s getting great press
Though how it survives is anyone’s guess
If you ask me, it’s a great big mess
For elitist, nerdy shmucks
“It’s free!” they say, if you can get it to run
The Geeks say, “Hey, that’s half the fun!”
Yeah, but I got a girlfriend, and things to get done
The Linux OS SUCKS
(I’m sorry to say it, but it does.)
This year is the year. All you have to do is switch. With products like Ubuntu, there’s no reason not to. It. Just. Works.
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.
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.
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.
People who say that severely underestimate the time, effort, and expertise they’ve accumulated that makes it easy for themselves, but hard for others.
I tried to switch once before COVID. It was horrible. Oh, I now need to learn about file systems and NTFS and ext3/4(?) - i guess i’ll try Linux on a separate, old hard drive. Ok, something didn’t work, I now have to figure out what driver wasn’t supported and what I need to download. Great, people on forums are helpful but they’re asking me a bunch of gibberish. Now I gotta figure out this command line thing. Oh cool some people built GUIs for certain stuff so i don’t need to play with the command line, but then the GUI doesn’t work occasionally and now I have to figure out if it’s the GUI that broke or something else. And then at some point I got stuck because of file permissions.
Unsurprisingly, I’m back on Windows. It sucks, but at least it really just works.
For majority of people, an OS isn’t something they want to think about, nor something they know a lot about. For example, I’m not a gearhead, so when I buy a car, I just want to drive it off the lot on Day 1 - sure not everything is perfect the way I want it, but i don’t need to do anything if I don’t want to. I don’t want to buy a shell of a car and have to go to 5 different shops to choose a tire, install my own seats, get used to the stick shift being on the roof of the car instead of beside me, and have it break down on me all the time because “you aren’t using it right”.
It all depends on your hardware. If you run standard hardware with an AMD card, all the drivers you need should (theoretically) be in the kernel and will magically just work. As soon as you start using running hardware with proprietary drivers then you have to put in a little effort. Might require you to install separate package(s) from a third-party repo or something, and that will require terminal. It’s just three commands usually: add the repo -> update your package manager -> install the driver. Not hard but if you are used to the Windows way of doing things it can be intimidating.
Even still, some stuff just doesn’t have Linux support at all or it’s completely community-maintained. If every company just open sourced their drivers and did things the “Linux” way then there would be no issue but unfortunately Linux doesn’t have the market share for those companies to care. So you get into the negative feedback loop of: Linux has low market share because of lack of support, and companies don’t support Linux because of low market share.
Valve has done amazing work with Steam Play. Seeing how well the steam deck plays games convinced me not to put windows on my new rig.
I don’t agree, however, that it just works. My graphics card needed a mess driver outside of the default repos for Ubuntu lts, and my gpu has been out for almost a year.
I also have one high dpi monitor and one standard-ish dpi monitor, and scaling them independently, moving windows back and forth, and going into and out of full screen games all produce undesired behavior. It’s annoying enough that I now just use one monitor.
Ubuntu LTS is generally used for servers, but if you are going to game on it you should consider using a container such as flatpak. It will share a kernel with your host OS (so if you need a newer kernel you are out of luck) but will be packaged with a newer version of Mesa. Installing drivers outside of the official repos can be a PITA because you often have to re-do everything when you upgrade your OS.
edit: should mention flatpak won’t make your OS work itself. You’ll need a newer distro for that. Ubuntu only gets major software updates for six months until the next release, everything after is minor adjustments like security updates and bug fixes.
And I’ll just sit there and watch my OS since I’ll have no software to run. No thanks.
Else I’d just sit there and watch my OS show me ads and it’d tell me how I should switch to Edge and use Bing. No thanks. /s
Maybe stop believing all the Linux propaganda you read on here.
I’m usually not on this community and just wanted to make a sarcastic play on your words.
E.g. if your in computer science it’s almost a requirement to be comfortable around Linux and it’s up to anyone if they want to use it bare metal or in a VM on Windows. So I agree that my comment was wrong but that also applies to yours. Anyones OS choice depends on the application you want to run. That’s why I definitely won’t recommend anyone using Adobe and other creative software to use Linux.