Yet Another Desktop Linux Rant

[raymac46]

I recently saw another YouTube rant on why desktop Linux is not growing in popularity. The reasons given:

1. Too Many Distros - hard to recommend one for new users.

My experience - any seasoned Linux user will be able to recommend one or two distros for a new user. Personally I'd go with Linux Mint.

2. Too many RTFM folks on forums.

My experience - never happens on this forum and I've only had it happen to me a couple of times in 17 odd years using Linux.

3. Problems with Wayland.

My experience - I've never had any problems with Wayland except one incompatibility with a GNOME extension where I switched back to X.

4. Appearance of many Linux apps sucks - behind the times.

My experience - 90% of what I do is in a browser and that looks the same on any platform. Maybe Libre Office is a bit old looking but it works OK for me.

 

If I had to give a reason for low adoption of Linux - aside from the fact that a lot of people have never heard of it - it would be that most folks have never had to install an operating system, and if they do install Linux are not used to getting their software from a repository and want to download it from the Web. They need some hand holding to get started.

[Hedon James]

3 minutes ago, raymac46 said:

I recently saw another YouTube rant on why desktop Linux is not growing in popularity. The reasons given:

1. Too Many Distros - hard to recommend one for new users.

My experience - any seasoned Linux user will be able to recommend one or two distros for a new user. Personally I'd go with Linux Mint.

2. Too many RTFM folks on forums.

My experience - never happens on this forum and I've only had it happen to me a couple of times in 17 odd years using Linux.

3. Problems with Wayland.

My experience - I've never had any problems with Wayland except one incompatibility with a GNOME extension where I switched back to X.

4. Appearance of many Linux apps sucks - behind the times.

My experience - 90% of what I do is in a browser and that looks the same on any platform. Maybe Libre Office is a bit old looking but it works OK for me.

 

If I had to give a reason for low adoption of Linux - aside from the fact that a lot of people have never heard of it - it would be that most folks have never had to install an operating system, and if they do install Linux are not used to getting their software from a repository and want to download it from the Web. They need some hand holding to get started.

I can relate to some of these....not necessarily agree, but empathize.

 

1.  When I first heard of Linux, I was itching to give it a try.  Until I discovered there were at least TEN versions (my perception at the time) to consider....how was I supposed to pick the right one for ME?  "someone please tell me which of these are best for a beginner?"  I understand the question, and I understand how difficult it is to answer that question, without asking a few more questions.  For the record, I eventually settled on Ubuntu 9.04, and stuck with it for about 12 years before I moved "upstream" to mother Debian.  Many years of distro-hopping with VMs on my Ubuntu confirmed I had made the right choice.  My VM farm is VERY select now....WinXP, Win7, Win10, and TinyWin11, along with Arch, Manjaro, OpenSUSE, and Debian (I wanna see what the next jump looks like, and practice the move, before I actually do it).  And a Test VM to boot a live iso that looks interesting.  But when it comes to installation on virtual metal....that's it...the ones mentioned are the only ones.

 

2.  I HATE those folks.  RTFM....why didn't I think of that?  If you had bothered to RTFP (read the "fine" post), you'd know that I don't understand what the manual says.  If I wanted to learn how to read, write and speak Spanish, would you hand me a book written in Spanish and tell me to read it?  Sounds IDIOTIC doesn't it?  And that's what their RTFM counsel sounds like to me.  Maybe ask a question or two to help me determine how to connect the dots?  I guess someone needed to feel superior that day and I looked like high-heeled boots to little Napoleon.  At least one of us got what we were looking for...

 

3.  Problems with Wayland?  RUKM?  It's not even the default (yet) in many (most?) distros...how could that be an impediment to wider adoption?  I've been hearing discussions about Wayland since I jumped over back in 2009 (9.04, remember?), and Wayland has continued to mature, but is it the default in anything but Fedora?  I don't know, but it certainly doesn't explain the lack of mass uptake.  Someone reached for this explanation.

 

4.  Who makes decisions on a distro's viability based solely on appearance?  Go buy a Mac and pay the ungodly extra money for the eye candy.....OSX was tailor made for such shallow users.  Alternatively, sticking with Linux, simply tinker with the Preferences and/or a new Theme, or even a new WM that uses different decorations.  Easy Peasy....try that with Windows and get back to me.  It didn't stop Windows uptake, but it's a strike against Linux?  Whomever thinks this has greatly diminished credibility in my view.  JMO...

 

5.  I think Ray is onto something, but Ray's reason presumes Linux has already been installed and the user is being stymied or flummoxed by the paradigm.  The REAL reason, IMO is the one link in the chain prior to that experience.  Linux has never cut a deal with a MAJOR computer vendor to sell and ship computers with Linux pre-installed.  There have been attempts with smaller vendors (System76, Tuxedo, etc...) but after the war was already fought and won by Windows in the late 80s and early 90s.  Once upon THAT time, computers were a wild, wild west of OS.  You could stay basic with a shell & prompt; you could buy Windows; you could buy BSD; you could buy Haiku/BeOS; you could buy NEXT; etc...  And it became REALLY OBVIOUS in those early stages of OS wars that folks were buying hardware based on the OS they wanted, not the other way around.  That's when young Billy Gates got the bright idea to have HIS OS installed on as many machines as possible...HP, Compaq, Toshiba comes to mind as the biggest vendors back then.  Stevie Jobs had a similar idea, but restricted his OS to machines he built ONLY...no exceptions.  30+ years later, it's still similar....about 85% of computers are Windows, 10% are OSX, and 5% are everything else....the needle hasn't moved much.

 

But imagine a hypothetical scenario where computer manufacturers of the late 80s and early 90s decided to eschew the upstart Windows OS and it's license fees for a less expensive but UNIX/POSIX compliant Linux/BSD OS and shipped their machines with that OS pre-installed!  I believe that Linux/BSD would be the dominant OS in the world today (much like most of Europe would likely be speaking German if they had just avoided drawing America into WWII), and we'd be having the discussion of "why isn't Windows more popular as an OS?"  The situation unfolded the way it did, and you can't change history, but the answer is that "it doesn't come pre-installed for the overwhelming majority of users; it's an "after-market upgrade" that very few users are aware of, and even fewer are capable of making, and even fewer actually make."  In a nutshell, there it is....there's the reason.  Everything else is just speculation of a reason in spite of the real reason, the handicap of not being pre-installed for the masses.

[Bookmem]

1 hour ago, raymac46 said:

I recently saw another YouTube rant on why desktop Linux is not growing in popularity. The reasons given:

1. Too Many Distros - hard to recommend one for new users.

My experience - any seasoned Linux user will be able to recommend one or two distros for a new user. Personally I'd go with Linux Mint.

2. Too many RTFM folks on forums.

My experience - never happens on this forum and I've only had it happen to me a couple of times in 17 odd years using Linux.

3. Problems with Wayland.

My experience - I've never had any problems with Wayland except one incompatibility with a GNOME extension where I switched back to X.

4. Appearance of many Linux apps sucks - behind the times.

My experience - 90% of what I do is in a browser and that looks the same on any platform. Maybe Libre Office is a bit old looking but it works OK for me.

 

If I had to give a reason for low adoption of Linux - aside from the fact that a lot of people have never heard of it - it would be that most folks have never had to install an operating system, and if they do install Linux are not used to getting their software from a repository and want to download it from the Web. They need some hand holding to get started.

By far, the biggest reason "Linux is not growing in popularity" is that computer makers don't support it. They don't want the extra expense of having Linux tech support. Very few makers have ever offered a choice of Windows or Linux to computer buyers.

[securitybreach]

Well to begin with some of those were valid point 10-15 years ago but none of them are the case nowadays. There are a lot of distros (most are derivatives of just a couple) but really LinuxMint is good enough for 99% of users. No one is saying RTFM anymore as you do not have to open up a terminal anymore on linux if you do not want to.

 

As far as polished, linux is way more polished that any windows setup ever will be due to it's nature. It took all the way to windows 11 for microsoft to change up the theme and round the corners. Most of windows and mac features are things that linux has had for decades. Things like workspaces, theme management, etc. Pretty much every "new" feature they claim is something that linux has had for 10+ years.

 

The person who wrote sounds like someone who hasn't tried out linux in over a decade (or even 20 years). Even the wayland comment was something that was valid over 5 years ago but it works just fine on the distros that come with it nowadays.

[securitybreach]

Most people's internet habits are completely browser based anyway. Unless you use a specific piece of software for work, you can do everything on linux without a terminal that you can do on windows, literally. Steam's proton has been around since 2017 so gaming is no longer a problem on linux if you use Steam. I have a large Steam library that is all playable perfectly under linux, usually better than under windows (due to the overhead).

 

 

[raymac46]

I certainly agree with HJ's comment that not having Linux pre-installed is a major barrier to adoption. That still leaves a major segment of the population who have Windows 10 and older hardware that will be obsolete in the next year. From what I can see, those folks are not trying to install Linux - just junking the old perfectly good machines to buy a new Win 11 or Mac. I got a fabulous i5 Broadwell machine that way.

I could never see the previous owner of that machine installing Linux without some hand-holding. He couldn't even get a printer working without some help.

[raymac46]

I also began with Ubuntu. I had an old Dell desktop that I was loath to buy Windows XP for (it was running Windows Me.) A guy at a local computer shop gave me a copy of Ubuntu Dapper Drake. Wifi with WPA was terrible. It took me weeks to get it working, and only with one brand of wifi adapter (Atheros.) But at least someone took the time to suggest a distro. Shortly after that I became a member of this forum, and any technical concerns I had vanished.