Why don't more people use desktop Linux? I have a theory you might not like
Why don't more people use desktop Linux? I have a theory you might not like
There might be a very simple explanation for why the masses have yet to adopt Linux as their desktop operating system and it's one the open-source community won't like.
I'm curious to hear thoughts on this. I agree for the most part, I just wish people would see the benefit of choice and be brave enough to try it out.
You're viewing a single thread.
To the question it's clickbaiting you to see:
The problem is the lack of a representative version of Linux.
And the response is that Linux is not Windows or OSX. It doesn't work the same way. The point of 80 gazillion different flavors is that it can be made to be what is wanted or needed. ChromeOS and Android are Linux and I'd argue they both qualify as "desktop" even if Android rocks many phones in mobile mode. If you don't like sysv init for whatever reason you can find a bunch that don't use it. Want to install a modern version on a 486? You can with lightweight 32-bit distros, though it'll be terrible and it means you're a masochist.
Possibly because OSX is pretty similar under the hood by its nature as a *BSD derivative, and Windows has WSL which has become pretty good from what I'm told. A casual user may simply not encounter the need to install a whole different operating system on bare metal anymore.
But I think the reason, special cases aside, is that they haven't given it an honest try. It's not the Duplo of operating systems, to get what you're after out of it you have to actually try, to learn how. It's easier to give up and go back to what seems to work based on it being the first thing they saw.
you only view those as positives because you are not the average user. for the average user those are actually negatives. The average user's answer to "do you prefer systemd or sysvinit?" would be "why the fuck should I care? I just want something that works. And I want that something to work the same whether it's on my personal machine or my work machine, or my mom's."
If you force the user to have to choose, most times they just won't. So they choose something that does not offer the choice at all. Other operating systems do not require them to give an honest try at being able to try them.
Your hypothetical user could throw a dart at a list of distros and just install the one it hits.
but how does one ensure that their dart lands in the same spot as their employer's and their mom's? consistency is very important for the average user, at odds with us enthusiasts' joy at being able to change anything.
I am not against linux, (I use arch btw) but I accept the fact that most people don't find computers as exciting as I do.
Their employer is probably using Windows because they're locked in so that's a red herring. Their mom, if not using Windows for similar reasons, is probably using some variant of Ubuntu.
it's a hypothetical scenario. And you still failed to even acknowledge my point, let alone get it.
What is your point? That you're more enlightened than us plebs or something?
you keep saying that the average user can do this or that. when the point isn't whether they could, but whether they want to. The average user does not want to choose. Look up the paradox of choice.
It's hard for a system to become mainstream when techy people keep boasting to them that its biggest feature is the one they specifically do not want
Maybe that's just another feature. Eternal September sucks, as evidence by this very interaction.
Win wsl is awful.