But there's no tool for him to collaborate with people he meets on the internet on the kernel. Maybe heb should make some kind of collaborative tool and call it Git or something
I use Linux on my Desktop every day (in the last 12 years). I starve for a commercial level photography software (like Photoshop or Affinity Photo). Probably this is the issue - lacking commercial level software support for Linux.
@⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ Yeah that's pretty much what my experience with Linux was like. *shit breaks *have to identify the shit first *chase a few dead ends before I finally find something that describes my specific issue *apply the fix by using a magic spell on the command line *shit works again. barely.
@@centralintelligenceagency9003 I use Fedora, which is known to be on a bleeding edge of development, for 7 years and it happened only twice. First time it happened of a buggy update and it was resolved same day. Second time, I fucked up graphic card drivers. Since Fedora's release cycle is hectic, I do not see any problem with that what's more I am more then happy with it.
Some distros hate closed source softwares, even more hate for commercial softwares. That's the problem, the closed minded of some open source developers.
Genuine question here: Why linux? I know nothing about operating systems but what can you do on linux, that you can't on windows, that justifies 'starving for photoshop' to you?
@@Vlozh My experience. I was curious and installed Fedora as second OS so that i could "learn" Linux. Few months later I realized that i do not use Windows at all. Faster, simpler, no distractions, stays out of my way and let me focus on whatever I do.
That sort of attitude is what keeps the average, not so tech savvy person from using Linux distros. Thankfully, in 2019, things are looking different. Within a few years, Linux will get a massive share of users. Proprietary will always lead, sadly, that too off the backs of open source contributors
@@boxingexpert9065 It's fine for both of those things. There are many native Linux games and Wine runs quite a few of the non-supported ones. What do you mean by "entertainment"?
Well, linux is also confusing in the sense that it has a gazillion distributions. There isn't just "the linux". There is ubuntu, there is linux mint and so forth. It's already hard to understand what the difference of all those operating systems is and I'm a pretty tech savy person. Of course you could read it up and learn all that stuff, but that's where it already fails, because no average user will ever do that.
sounds like people in game that don't read instructions then get frustrated when they lose. believe it or not... you had to laern windows, you had to learn about every device that you've ever plugged in and the only thing you didnt learn was all that clutter in your registry. lol technology fails because you had to read the manual. give me a break.
I know that it may sound rediculous to you, but actually technology really fails because people have to read the manual. That's why Apple is so popular. Apple is the only company that fully understands that most people are complete idiots when it comes to technology and that you have to make something very restrictive and completly impossible to fail even when you don't read the manual. Believe me, I work in marketing and if you want a product that will be successful with average consumers, then even the dumbest person in the world has to be able to operate it without failing. I like tech and have no problem using linux (just recently installed lbuntu on an atom n270 netbook just for the lulz), but that's completly not how the average person works and that's exactly why linux will never reach the mass consumer market if the situation stays like it is.
i think your misunderstanding the average user. i will not dismiss your point because your making valid point but your statement are too iron (which i get cause you need to drive a point.) also it may sound ridiculous to me but i can't sense a feeling that i was disrespectful on the last comment so i do wish to apologise. everyone whos either against or with windows actually owns or have dualbooted a linux succesfully. no one has ever failed to reach the linux desktop...these are not your average user -points sake these are your cs or the tech savvy (people in a somewhat techy environment) linux believe it or not is an option in many custom built pc's (mostly gamers) but then like only gamers enter that store. the average user does not apply their own devices...they get network companies or the I.T guy these same people usually buy low end pc's usually dell or lenovo. the only thing they care out is the ability to see thier files and put in usb's. they usually buy their computers at megastores at the pc aisle. nowadays they walk in apple stores cause apple looks nice. if only linux had their own stores, that'd be nice. so the difference here is that some people like their cars pro-tuned. some people like their cars tuned OEM. so what linus is saying is 100% correct.
just to add. i think in 1991 linux wouldve been confusing without google. i needed a manual to dualboot. i didn't need a manual to make my OS linux. jlinux also doesnt have a website with 100 versions on it. it has one and persistence usb .exe windows wouldve asked you to do the same thing online. you put that in click next a few times and voila full linux. (it even asks you if you want to download all the drivers and codec) you put in a windows disk that costed you in, a couple of next clicks and voila full windows, it never asks you if you want to download certain codecs, you have to refer to the manufacturers manual. so at the end of day the above average people do read manuals like modems and printers and such.
john doe whom did he “steal” it from? And can you really “steal” something when the source is available? Linux originally was a fork of Minix, which was written for educational purposes; nor did the Minix license make what Linus did illegal or unethical Ergo, your claim is wrong and stupid
@@Facebook-StevenSchmidlap We have to dispute or discount "facts" that you gave, when you gave no sources or info to back them up? It works that if you make a claim, you have to back it up. Not that you make any random claim and we have to somehow find sources to disprove it. I could make anything up on the spot and you'd have a difficult time conjuring sources to disprove me. Don't be a fucking idiot.
While what he is saying is correct he also misses the other huge factor - the application ecosystem. Android did not succeed just because it came pre-installed (symbian OS and windows OS failed when they were pre-installed as well) but also because it had lots of useful application providing great user experience. That's where linux in its current state cannot beat the other OSs
@noodlenoggin you're right windows doesn't have a community. It has a million communities. All Linux has is people spending 90% of their time explaining why Linux is better and how it "is perfect for their use case" while ignoring everyone else's use cases
@noodlenoggin yea and I've never left a review on amazon apart for when something breaks. And youre right, all linux users do is talk about linux. Its like when you had a playstation as a kid and all your friends had xboxs. And really, customisation is reall all linux has going for it, and lets be honest, customisation on an OS is not something that anyone needs unless hosting a very particular server of some kind. 99% of the people who say linux customisation is why they want it are just changing the look of the windows and task bar
Linux makes you completely depend on googling and searching around for answers, looking through community posts, nothing can be done without that. Point in case: Why the hell doesn't popular app-stores sort by popularity or something? Like Pop! OS & Elementary OS just randomly sorts every single application, at the top of the "games" category are dozens of absolutely random dogshit worse-than-flash-games games before anything like Steam & Lutris. There are no options for sorting either
@Serg M That’s interesting. I am a longtime Mac user and currently use Windows 10 for business reasons. I prefer either of them to any Linux UI I have been exposed to so far.
@Serg M Mac is trash. Safari corrupted for me back in the day, and it has ECC slower ram. Linux is too much of a hassle if you run into a snag to make it worth my time. If you have some nuance involved in say running ancient software, good luck getting support for it in say forums or anywhere else. You might as well be at the point if you want to fix things, youre programming the solution yourself which is an enormous turn off because by default it means if you wanted to get things done expect it to take a million years to get any sort of volume out, at least for what im doing. Plus its unreasonable to do all of this work for a platform almost no one on a dedicated computing device say on someones desk actually uses in any meaningful numbers. If I ever messed with linux again, it would purely be for server use.
@Serg M Its pretty simple. Example: 1936x1089 internal 1920x1080 actual pixel rendering to native scaling I dont think anyones going to notice the missing fraction of a percent at the borders, cock it up though since the vertical number is odd. It would give us the capacity for better resolving at the screens edges though. A true injection flavor RTX hybrid, though thats stretching things a bit.
I think another major reason it is not popular on the desktop is because of one of the strong points of Linx, the number of choices. There are so many distros and so many people who are interested in Linux get so intimidated by the number of distros they just give up because they worry they will break something.
Used Linux once, Mint was afraid as fuck to use it, noticed it was more straightforward than Windows, was easier to understand, and used less of my computer resource, it was damn impressive for normal web browsing and internet stuff, but I missed a lot of my games, and other things, it was a formidable experience, but, I came back to windows this monstrosity of software because I needed to play my games and get some work done.
He's American. But yeah, considering an ever larger portion of the population simply refuses to learn English, I guess it can be viewed as an achievement.
A Linux distro to be successful must be able to do EVERYTHING through the Gui, using the terminal must be optional, as in Windows and in all popular operating systems, then the games and pre-installs will arrive.
@@polymorphicprocrastination5345 Ok, not everything but almost, on Windows I used the terminal only to see the ip address, for the rest I almost never needed it (maybe I have used it a dozen times in 10 years, and I am a developer) on Ubuntu (for example) I had to use it 20 times in the same day, even for very simple things.
Using the terminal is faster, less resource heavy, and what not. Linux Distributions must not fatten itself in size and memory usage with plethora of horrible and unnecessary GUI processing (and other interconnecting things). You had to use the terminal 20 times on a single day-now take the average of about 4 clicks per task for doing the same via GUI; 20*4 = 80; imagine yourself moving your mouse and clicking 80 times and waiting for the GUI to load. *That. Is. Horrible.* The people who wants to use a Linux Distribution must alter their deplorable and technologically aberrant mindset, not Linux distributions.
@@eeriemyxi Using the terminal is more efficient, but using the GUI is more satisfying and intuitive (at least for me and for many other people), efficiency is not always a priority, when you eat something you do it as quickly as possible because it is more efficient or you just enjoy the meal? Ok, the terminal may be more satisfying for you, but we are not all the same person and in most cases there isn't a correct and a wrong way to do things, you can choose the one you prefer. Clarified this, I did not say that there should be no distros without GUI, but there should be at least one distro with a GUI that allows you to do almost anything, so we're all happy, you use your distro without GUI and I use mine with the GUI.
Most desktop users just want a friendly and functional desktop that is intuitive. Linux in my opinion is too complicated for them. If there is no demand for Linux, manufacturers will not push for preinstalled Linux desktops. I tried to get my friends to try Linux and they come back and tell me they want a Desktop that will work for them and not work against them.... so yeah. Linux cannot penetrate the market because it is not preinstalled. For it to be preinstalled, Linux needs a window manager that rivals the "user friendliness" of Windows and Mac and not bleeding edge technology because that means nothing to the majority of desktop users.
It isn't about people not wanting it.. it is about Microsoft lobbying... This is a very known case which had it's peak in the 90s. Gaming too, MS makes so many demands for the hardware companies as they had the power to, that if they refused to ignore linux and cater only for windows mainly, they would lose such and so deals, in effect millions. Anyway it is all illegal in free trading but we know US actually ain't about free trade, only their own products should be so. (another digression). Anyway, it is also pretty well known, that games are and/or would be superior on the linux platform as in all other aspects (servers, phones, routers, etc, security). had this lobbying not been there (for direct-X vs opengl etc etc.). if MS was banned from all world markets bar their own (U.S. ), your hardware would be giving you games far superior to what they spew out on the windows platform. I would say anything between 20-35%.
Mojito skurt Those days are long gone. Check out www.vgchartz.com and you will see that PC games only contribute about 5~10% of the most popular games sold, 90% are sold on consoles. Games nowadays are scale down to work on consoles so PC will have no problem running them. The PC elitist, the master race who are interested in maximizing everything is only but a small portion of the 5~10% of PC gamers. Companies like nVidia simply are not interested in supporting linux because there is no money to be made. Linux UI is truly unfriendly. I would go as far as to say that it is hostile to the layman. Take the simplest of task: resizing a window. People tell me that in linux corner-grab and edge-grab is as hard as scoring a headshots. These simply things, small things that MS and Apple does so well is why average users will immediately pick them over Linux. Hence no demand from the layman and people who would use Linux can build them anyways so no point for manufacturers to pre-install them anyways. Not many are interested in getting more out their hardware. Many dont even know what hardware they have. They just want something easy and friendly.
you did not even understand what you just wrote by yourself. There is no Linux desktop at all. Linux has no user interface. it just does not exist. There are desktop that you CAN USE on Linux-like-operating-systems like Gnome, KDE or XFCE, which ARE super simple to use and highly user-friendly. in FACT, windows by itself is not user-friendly. it is just "normal", because everybody uses it and everybody know how to use it. An also Apples OSX is super duper user unfriendly. This is an UI what is working hardly against you.
Rhiji You do realize that when most people say "Linux" it implies the entire package that includes whatever desktop environment right? Are you another one of those who like to tell me how I should refer to the kernal as Linux and the enire system as GNU/Linux to avoid ambiguity? *facepalm* Back to the topic: Have you tried helping friends and family switch to Linux much? I am simply posting the general reaction I get from them. As a matter of fact, after installing multiple distros and desktop environment for them to try, they finally went back to Windows even when they only use spreadsheets and browsers 99% of the time. Some of the complains: Why is the scroll bar in Gnome so narrow. Why are the window borders in XFCE so narrow. Dont tell me to tell them that they can download as many themes as they like or that they can customize and make their own or that they can alt-drag etc etc. They are not interested in that. They just want something simple, fuctional and practical out of the box. p/s:.... your last statement.... do u mean OSX is unfriendly or friendly(does not work against the user)....
Rhiji Rebuke??? You rebuked me??? You do realize that my statement that says "I know people who find linux to be too unfriendly" cannot be rebuked right? All I have to say to you is: Learn to communicate in a polite and civil manner and realize that not everyone has the same preferences. Just because the people you meet and help are happy and does not have any complains means that --NO ONE ELSE-- will complain?? ....... you know what? ....Actually, you are so ....different and special... that I do not think I am equiped to communicate with you.
Eleven years later and we have the Steam Deck leading the way as a machine with Linux pre-installed. Linux is in a very good spot right now for the desktop. It's a stretch, but a version of Steam OS for gaming laptops might be a good idea.
You idiot, steam os is not a desktop replacement for your PC. It's literally a separate environment for running games specifically. You would need arch Linux os to replace window os if you want it to be like steam deck equivalent since it is running on that OS. Holy hell normies smoothbrain like you should not be near a PC..
There are laptop manufacturers like Vant PC or Slimbook that sell their laptopts with the Linux distro that you choose preinstalled (they also offer windows if you pay the license). Those laptops have a really competitive price and really good specs. I hope more companies would do that too.
I'm not sure that that's really the main reason. I have not used preinstalled Windows in way over a decade. And I know many who haven't either. But I just tried installing Debian on a machine and guess what? It didn't even contain a very basic Realtek network driver. That's not something a user should have to worry about. It was like that 15 years ago already (back then - no driver for my graphics card) and I guess unfortunately, it still is today.
+notthere83 becose is not working!!! ,,, if you have a 2-3 years old laptop is working , and must very hi spec for ubuntu,,, quad monitor , 5,1 audo , wifi card ,, not working ,,, if you are lucky and every hard ware work ok ,, if something dont ,,, forget it it will never work ,, and you end up craching the kernel and re install the os ,,
+notthere83 Trust me, that I get that shit on Windows constantly. Network drivers not being included is just one of the many fun things that happen here and there.
ugely with windows you go on the site of your divice donwlad and is working ,if is from a reputable brand , linux,, i buy a tp link wifi card ,plug it in linux can not conect to network, try to instal drivers , to upgrade and update , naw every time i plug the card pc freez and i need to hard reset a tp link with realtek chip ,, SirNilzey
yep , me to i have backup of all my drivers the dont take a lot of space. becose sometimes new drivers are working well and company like dell or hp dont have drivers for old divices
Александар Милојковић True but hardly ideal. Zbrush is not supported under Linux and I need that for work. The alternative is Blender which performance wise bottlenecks me way, way too early. For comparison I can sculpt in Zbrush up to 8 million or so polys per mesh, while blender basically freezes at 1.5 million. But it basically becomes unusable at 0.8 million. So yeah, alternatives exist, but they're hardly reliable.
Александар Милојковић true many people are lazy ...others simply just dont have the time. We have full time jobs now . I wish I had the spare time to learn a new OS . I like Ubuntu .
Not really. The problem is the lack of quality software exclusivity. No one is going to switch to another operating system just to run the same applications they've been using all along, especially if it means learning things all over again in a new environment. What would be the worth in that? Linux needs Linux exclusive, high quality, professional level applications, which would encourage users of other systems to switch because it is worth it to try the new system to get to the treasure inside.
Roland Taylor That's not going to happen without linux dedicated developers and alot of crowdfunding. Big corporations making applications want money, not a happy userbase.
Quorthon Plavi This is the sort of thinking that actually makes Linux be so unsuccessful as a desktop OS: - "People are too Lazy to learn" It's not that people are lazy, it's simply because for most people, the PC is just a mean to an end, they use it to get their jobs done, and that's it. Why would my parents CARE to learn linux if it's just to do the same thing they already do, but requires more time, just think about it, why? You are an enthusiast, and you actually like to research and learn these things, but I'm sorry to tell you, you are the minority. Unless the devs start designing applications and the OS itself with the common people in mind, putting aside this arrogance that is so wide spread on linux communities, all will remain the same... but sometimes I think that's exactly the way they want it to be.
While I am no expert in the IT industry but IMO Linux not being available pre-installed in PCs is just an effect of a prior bigger cause, and not the real problem. We do see some laptops/PC having pre-installed Linux but most of the consumers just come back home and install Windows on it anyway. The real reason for Windows being popular lies in its scope of availability, and that's what lacking with Linux. We saw Windows in our school labs and that's where our first interaction with computers started. We then move to college and there we see Windows again. All the cyber cafes, your neighbor or friend's computer has Windows installed. That's where the chime to get used to Windows starts, and it's so addicting that subconsciously we never move to any other platform. Microsoft is also smart at distributing it's OS to the masses. Not just having them pre-installed in PC but actually allowing piracy to some extent (well, sort of). The reason pirated windows are available so freely and easily is because Microsoft does not take major actions to stop it. It rather allows it subtly. As more and more people get used to using Windows that way and thus never move on to something else. So, when these people complete their studies and move to companies to work, inherently and blindly the consensus to use Windows is made, and that’s when the orders to get pre-installed Windows PCs are made and that’s why we see Windows pre-installed I PCs. So basically, it’s an effect and not the real cause. And that’s why we see all the plethora of popular software too. I don’t think Linux can do much at the moment to capture Windows addicted consumers, but it can certainly take some steps. Only Linux pre-installed is not going to work, hence Linux at least should go for dual boot systems. Users will then not wipe out Linux in order to install Windows on it, and this gives Linux a chance to get itself acquainted to the users Social media campaign can also work for them. Have more and more conversation around the open source world and Linux and try to create an environment around. This will raise the curiosity of the people and urge them to try it. A dual boot PC will be handy at that instance. Well that's enough internet for today.
You're so fucking dumb it is funny. Linux is AVAILABLE because it is FREE unlike Windows. But Windows STILL outshines and outsells Linux by 100 fold. But Linux is such a piece of shit it STILL can't hold a candle to Windows.
@@Facebook-StevenSchmidlap you created an account with an obviously fake name to write under every comment that Linus "stole" Linux. Either you have nothing else to do with your life or it's your job. One of the two.
@@АлексейГриднев-и7р You are one pompous yet stupid fucknut. You know nothing about my life, what I have to do or what my job is. Why don't you focus on the fact Torvalds is a thief rather than post your asinine comment. Fucking moron.
@@Facebook-StevenSchmidlap The desktop market is 1/15 of the phone market alone and is shrinking globally year after year. Seeing comments here it just seems like people have really hard time understanding what Torvalds actually does. He is the gatekeepers of Linux kernel that pretty much 80% of all global devices from Android, your smart TV, any smart fridge toaster or over 70% of the internet that us running from linux servers. He cares about the linux kernel being maintained and I don't think he could have ever dreamed of a situation like this.
I mean, Valve has gotten their games to work natively on Linux and are part of the Proton project to get as many Windows games to work on Linux as possible
@@snessy Exactly. From my hundreds of games on Steam and Epic, probably 3/4 are now are "runs close to or better than Windows native", while most of the rest is either "runs with issues" and some "doesn't run at all due to EAC/Microsoft Framework X", the remainder is very small.
for gaming it's getting WAY better now. It still has some crucial compatibility issues with software such as Word and Adobe. If there was a way to run Office365 software (not that crappy online version), I would hop 100%. It's still an issue but it's getting better.
Gaming is better now and I think easy anti cheat is in talk with valve about how to get that working with Linux, but i think something people miss out on a lot is just the fact of how so much creative software isn't available for linux. The fact the entire Adobe suite isn't on linux is a major hit.
This year was my jump into Linux and I happened to of already bought a new hp laptop. My next laptop will be a machine from system 76 to support a company making machines with linux preinstalled.
I just checked out system 76 - I won't lie to you, it seems like overpriced garbage. Why not build your own pc and instal linux on it? Is it really worth it to pay huge money just to "support" some random company who happens to sell linux desktops?
@@Gamez4eveR China is shipping Linux by default now on the huawei so I guess we will see how that pans out, imo the Deepin DE looks very good, outside of the probable Chinease botnet.
Times changed, ever since i switched to linux on desktop (Debian + KDE Plasma) i never looked back, the software management alone is light years ahead of windows
I have to disagree, if you hit a snag with a dependency and need cli intervention, a normal desktop user will crumble, fixing the issue is too complex for them and even trying to find what the problem may be is also going to be difficult. This is where Windows / Mac is superior.
"I'll use an OS with close to no commercial software which is vital for anyone having an IT job, shitty drivers, no video games and generally horrible UI design. My reasons? I am too stupid to secure my Windows system and too illiterate to understand that NT 6.1 is miles ahead of Linux for desktop use. But it's ok, the fact thaht I can install the most obscure Linux destros by religiously following a wiki page makes me smart as fuck" - Linux users
He's right on the pre-installs and It's not going to take off on desktop unless you make it really intuitive and easy to use (AKA no command line needed for 99% of usage). Have only ONE distribution with a great GUI. Every hardware addition is plug&play, and have Games and Software availability.
And of course Linux user can't agree on what that distro should even be, we sadly need a corporation or other large scale organization to make that choice
I'm a fairly techy guy, but I lost any and all desire to use Linux as my primary OS when I had to spend like 2 hours looking for working drivers for a WiFi adapter
I think it varies on the distro you're trying to install as well as the hardware its being installed on. I tried installing Zorin OS on a cheap HP Stream laptop and had little to no issues. Tried putting it on a higher end HP Pavilion gaming laptop however and I had the Wifi issue as well. Wouldnt even let me connect using a LAN cable either. I like Linux, but I think there are still too many inconsistencies when it comes to trying to install it on multiple types of hardware and the different distros that could potentially give you more problems in terms of driver support from the initial installation without having to go through a whole bunch of hoops to try and find working drivers.
Very informative talk, been going down the rabbit hole watching videos on this sort of stuff. As for the reason it's not as popular as your standard OS, I think it comes down to: 1. There's a learning curve. 2. Not everyone has time or desire for that learning curve. Windows and macOS are more or less plug and play. For the people that barely know how to use a computer, it's not even remotely feasible to expect them to learn what Linux is, what it's advantages are, and how to use it. More than likely, that type of person is using a computer for basic tasks - online shopping/social media/online banking/MS office documents... why on earth would you need Linux for that? This still represents the majority of the market. In a similar vain, it's a lot like consoles vs gaming PCs debate. Sure, the PC does more, and is more powerful. But for a lot of people, plugging a system in and starting to game is about the extent of the amount of time they want to invest, which I think some people forget. The simplicity is the draw in both cases.
Gaming is another massive one, if one or two games you play frequently don't work well or even at all you're probably gonna just keep using Windows, I had that experience with Forza Horizon 5 and Bayonetta in particular
With Autodesk and Adobe, we are getting into Enterprise Software and the discussion is mostly about Average Users. Ether way, this is a vicious circle: Big companies won't build software for X11 because there aren't enough (paying) users. Users are scared to switch to Linux because the software they're accustomed to is not available for that distribution. For most users, Ubuntu or Mint would do, but they just don't know it and won't make the leap of faith.
That's not true. Most people require proprietary software from work that isn't available for the Linux platform. MS Office, Adobe as you mentioned, One Note, diverse CAD and management software. There is hope though: Google Chrome. Its emerging as a platform on its own, soon the OS will be secondary for average users.
I appreciate his pre-installed comment. I have been using professional audio hardware for years and very few manufacturers support Linux. What Linux needs is a company like Google to produce a common desktop version much like Android that has a standard graphical and driver API for developers. If I could get a Linux distro that could run Pro Tools, Cubase, etc. and have Lynx, Focusrite, MOTU, etc. driver support, I would jump in a second. I would gladly pay for it and even pay a yearly subscription for updates.
Linux *does* have audio interface support! All the interface brands you mentioned are all class-compatible. If it works natively on a Mac, it will work on Linux flawlessly! I've been using a Scarlett on my Linux setup since forever and it works completely fine. I can even get low-latency audio working on it with PipeWire and/or JACK. About drivers, Linux also does have a standard driver API for developers. They are either written as kernel modules or userspace programs. Software support is still kind of sad though, no one really wants to port programs on desktop Linux at all. If you want commercial DAWs, at least you get Tracktion Waveform and Bitwig on there, I guess.
I mean the numbers went to 4% to like 7,5%. Thanks to Valve, Mint and Conical. Valve is singlehandly leading the charge for casual gamers and Mint and Ubuntu for casual users. Its progress slow but progress and with Microsoft constantly shoting their own foot, its looking good. 2043 will be the year of Linux Desktop.
Yeah I spend so much for solving my wifi issues. I had to wipe out whole upgrade and put the old system back. When I checked on the forums , Issues seemed to be from hardware manufacturer, in my case hp failed to tell the open source community about which port they were using for antenna, you see usually there are two anteena but hp only provided one with different decoding so created a whole problem.
That's because Torvalds is a piece of shit software thief who can't write code to save his ass. He copied shit from 40 years ago then claimed it as his own. No wonder you can't install modern hardware with his copy and paste theft job.
@@Facebook-StevenSchmidlap no, the reason is that for some reason the wifi vendors don't care much about the linux market (because wifi is mostly a desktop thing, which is where Linux failed to spread). Do you think Linus Torvalds writes wifi drivers?
I would argue that problem is not that you have to install the OS, I think the real problem is that within 5 minutes of installing it you need to resort to the terminal to do something or get something that couldn't be achieved in GUI.
I honestly think it all has to do with drivers. With good driver support, you don't need to have goofy workarounds or use second rate substitutes for what you need. However, not many companies will be willing to make device drivers for 1%-2% of the market share, so it's truly a chicken and the egg problem. This also ties in with software compatibility, take Adobe Suite as a good example.
+hubomba "not many companies will be willing to make device drivers for 1%-2% of the market share" which in my pov, is really........ REALLY stupid. In their pov probably isn't, cause they may have some dependencies with Microsoft holding them back if you know what I mean.
"However, not many companies will be willing to make device drivers for 1%-2% of the market share, so it's truly a chicken and the egg problem. " One of the points of having an os and making programs for that os, instead of making a program that boot with computer, is that instead of the developers of that program having to have support to every hardware possible (an impossible thing and even if possible, new hardware will be created in the future when they or their company die).You will have the os and the company that made the hardware will make the driver for the os. If the hardware creators don't create drivers for some os, they are fucking with the reason to have os at the first place, blaming lack of userbase is stupid because developing drivers for os is their own duty, to make the entire idea of having os instead of bootable program to work.
in the past you are correct about the drivers. Now Linux don't have any problems with drivers unless new hardware within one year. Now many major companies support Linux drivers, Broadcom, intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Realtek.
I once installed a TP-link Wi-Fi adapter for my Linux desktop, the driver came uncompiled, I need to compile it myself, it was a pain to install since I don't much about computers and Linux during that time
He could just have said: Windows is a product while Linux is an open source project. Completely different animal, just happens to do the same thing. Windows got marketing, cooperate deal, instruction manuals and customer support. Linux has none of that. The end. I love that MC finally embrace Linux with the subsystem thing. Working with webs stuffs is impossible on windows.
Linux is just a kernel, you can do with it whatever you want, within the limits of GPL license. Google made two very successful products based on Linux kernel, namely, Android and Chrome OS.
I agree with your comment until the last sentence. As a developer, I say that working with web stuff is absolutely possible on Windows. I in fact do. Most programming stacks are multi-platform (Java, Python, Go), so are database engines (MySQL, PostgreSQL), and so are IDEs (Intellij IDEA, Eclipse, VS Code) and VCSs (Git, SVN). You've even got a native OpenSSH client. I've never had to resort to WSL for development purposes.
@@xXxNoisemaker Those are very basic and even basic stuffs are faster in Linux to set up. Some modules just don't exist on Windows, it's not possible to test it.
@@xXxNoisemaker Unicorn for example wasn't made for Windows. There were a bunch of gems that didn't play nice with Windows, you can check that yourself. It's not impossible to overcome, you can always VM it, but it is a pain when something didn't run right just because it's Windows. Linux dominate backend, it's more comfortable having the subsystem. I spend more time troubleshooting modules that don't play well with Windows than developing sometimes.
My Major reason is Adobe Products. I have used so many distros on my machine but i always had to switch between windows and linux for my average work. And some of it is related to newer hardware graphics driver.
Ask Adobe to port their products, ask the manufacturers to write drivers. The platform is already there, it's the developers who simply need to *actually port their software*
I think that beyond that "commercial reason" there're few quite heavy technical reasons either: 1. Lack of backwards compatibility. For example you can not expect to install all software that worked on Ubuntu 18.04 , on Ubuntu 20.04 (lts!). You get missing dependencies, missing ppa's etc... And think that Ubuntu is one of the most famous and used destros out there, with a commercial company behind it. And I am talking about LTS only!! If things are bad there, guess how bad they are on less famous distros. 2. UI (Gnome/Kde) issues. The hardware here doesn't matter(tried on various laptops), those libraries are buggy and resource heave. period. And think that I am just writing code most of the time so my needs are very modest. If I were a graphical designer, I would be cursing after 5 sec. So bottom line, you can not be successful on desktop without a solid working UI.
1.- There are distro-agnostic packaging formats that take care of the backwards compatibility (Mainly Snaps and Flatpak). 2.- If Gnome or KDE are giving you so e troubles, then don't use them, use other desktop environments or window managers, that's why they exist
Yes, Linux not coming preinstalled is part of the problem, but IMHO a much bigger problem is the lack of standards on the Desktop. As a programmer I can't for example write a program that just "prints" something or opens "the print dialog" on linux, because different distros have different libraries and NO COMMON API. Same thing for managing daemons, same thing for registering MIME types, installing and uninstalling software or registering a program to run at startup (that's not even consistent between different releases of the same distro). There also isn't a "default" desktop environment (OR AT LEAST A COMMON API) so you could write GUI programs without a framework that's possibly not preinstalled in the distro my client uses. The distros are just too different. As crappy as windows handles these things, at least in handles them consistently enough that programmers can rely on it. If you had that kind of consistency, you could much more easily get your GUI programs running on your clients computer - that would make Linux much more attractive for companies - and when people got used to Linux at work, they might be more open to having it on their home machine So pretty please, Linus, Linux Foundation, talk to the developers of the respective libraries and decide on standards for the APIs
I think the main issue is professional tools like Adobe collection and Camtasia, Snagit, ... I know there are alternatives but they aren't as good as the ones on windows and mac os
The problem with this is not on the Os itself, but in the developers who simply don't port their stuff to it. It's a vicious circle since: 1) The developers don't port their stuff to the target Os 2) Since they don't port their stuff, people don't switch because the software isn't available. 3) The market share doesn't grow because people don't switch, so it makes it look like almost nobody uses the Os 4) Since it looks like nobody uses the Os, the developers think it's pointless to port their software and offer support. And then the chain repeats itself. The preinstalled thing also affects this situation, but when it comes to software availability, the fault is of the developers that don't support GNU/Linux, not of GNU/Linux itself. And as an Arch Linux user (btw) it pains me to say it, but that's what the truth is rn. This is why it's much better to do the research first to know if you actually can make the switch, instead of blindly doing the switch and then blame the operating system because the software developers don't support it.
If someone can come up with a GUI for dummies on Linux that is not geared towards tech herds, just like on Ms Windows and Apple that might be a start. A new hardware company which exclusively sells Linux machines with the GUI for dummies would slowly lure users towards Linux. Just my 2cents
I have 40 years in computing. The reasons are its totally alien, its seen as a hackers OS, there are too many versions, a hostile user base but most of all there is no software. Really. What runs on it aside from office software?
The answer is simple: there are hundreds of different distros, and no average user is going to research to find what distro suits their needs. Doesn't matter how easy the install is
@@ethan-fel I manage several thousand Linux servers spread around the globe. I don't need to research it, buttercup. Your answer is invalid because it doesn't actually provide information.
@@seansopata5121 "buttercup". K, learn to be respectful and polite, it look like you spend too much time with your "several thousands of Linux server".
With the current trend in the software industry where everything is going onto the web (Office Online, web versions of Photoshop, etc), maybe the compatibility issue will be over. With a decent browser on your machine, you can do pretty much nowadays. In this new environment, Linux can play is 'free' card and gain market!
With everything being browser-based nowadays there is really no software concerns anymore for most people, device drivers are also in a much better place. The issue is Microsoft also knows this and has turned Windows into a basically free Product, supported by ads and spyware.
@TechaxWorld A lot of games and software without alternatives on par with the original product is still completely incompatible. Not to mention typing code will never be preferred to clicking around in a GUI for the average user. Even the "quickness of installing software" is something Microsoft is now competing with Linux in with their "Microsoft Store". Linux for personal use will never work.
@TechaxWorld I know what you mean, I felt very comfortable while I was using Linux for the short time I was, but again, even as a tech-savvy person there was a pretty steep learning curve, it didn't bother me much, but I can't imagine the average Joe ever "getting used" to that when alternatives like Windows exist. It's great that you got your games to run - I think it was a about a year ago I was trying Linux out and my games, even after extensive tweaking and messing around, unfortunately didn't (and still to this day don't), or should I say they did, but extremely poorly to the point of unplayability. On top of that I was missing the offline MS Office package a lot, and therefore decided that, while I'm rooting for the project, Linux simply isn't good enough for me to make the switch yet. The reason I'm pretty passionate about this topic is because I'd like to switch to Linux, but feel like its lack of "Average Joe-friendliness" makes it so it'll never get to a point where I'll be satisfied with it. I hope I'm wrong.
@TechaxWorld So, I still have Windows on my machine for games, but you saying that they can work on Linux is a game changer. What distro is best for gaming? I'm using Ubuntu as I ease myself into Linux but I'm planning on switching to another distro soon. If games work on Linux I may as well remove windows completely.
@TechaxWorld I could run wine just fine. But well, I graduated from compsci department. I am certain that even if a layman read wine documentation from top to bottom, they'll still struggle.
Poison Cloud, check your facts before claiming wrong. DOS came first on the market. Linux was already there when Windows 3.11 wasn't even a thing. It was just a "geek thing".
And you know why Linux isn't pre-installed on desktops? Because everything you want to do, you have to do through terminal. No matter how simple, the solution is always to type terminal commands, and edit settings files. And there's isn't a single distro where this is improved. I don't even know what the different distros do, other than ship with different UI colors and wallpapers. If they're not working to add more functions to the UI, then what are they even doing?
Another big issue is quality. Linux Server has a fantastic and high quality server experience. I really don't think I've ever had a bad experience with Linux Server. However switching to Linux Desktop and the quality drops to almost nothing. The reason behind that is the "bar". Yes, Linux Desktop has Wine to run Windows programs, it has a ton of video editors, cd/dvd software/ screen recording, you name it. It all sounds so fantastic on the box and when spoken by mouth. But Wine is notoriously buggy and glitchy, the video editors are often really crappy and feel like they were from the 90's, most of the programs (Even the window manager) tend to crash regularly and for no reason. You can minimize the crashing by leveraging very little features such as not using the Desktop's social platform integration or not using big features or feature heavy stuff. But most stuff is below par, horribly designed, poorly maintained, crashes often. Most of the GUI have no thought to any UI or UX (They come as an after thought because the developer wants to program, not design GUI). When I use Linux Desktop I feel like I'm walking on thin glass where anything could break when I do anything without warning. Surely this is a big issue in the Linux community, something that needs addressing and fixing. Unfortunately not which leads to another big problem. Most developers choose Linux, not for quality and a great UI/UX) but because it's open source. The only bar on releasing software to Linux that Linux Users are proud about is simply that it's open source. It doesn't even have to run without crashing, as long as it's open source, it's ok, and it's all good. This leads to a terrible experience with Desktop Linux. I love open source but I also want to enjoy using it, I want standards, I want quality, I don't ever want it to crash. I want the UI to feel like it's from 2020, not 1994. I want high standards because I want an amazing and well developed open source program. But what I get is "Well It's open source, that should be enough, it's better that money hungry companies that only care about draining everyone's money."
I'll give some counter-arguments. - 'The GUI of most programs has no thought to any UI or UX - it's an afterthought because the devs are programmers.' Well, yes and no. Yes, _some_ programs looks dated. Because the only people who use Linux are people who go out of their way to install a separate operating system onto their computer, a lot of them are programmers, meaning they're more used to command-line programs. But also no. It's a GUI. It does what it needs to do. Even the ones that do admittedly look dated (like VLC) are functionally identical to 'modern-looking' software. Do you really care so much about the buttons being round instead of flat? Remember, 'dated' just means 'looks different to modern software'. Not to mention there are many open-source programs with quite a nice GUI (like Gimp. I'd also say LibreOffice looks nice too, but apparently it doesn't? Comparing Word and LibreOffice Writer now, I genuinely cannot see a difference. Writer uses the GNOME toolbar but that's the only difference I can see). Not to mention - if you really care so much about using a nice-looking GUI, then _just use a program that has one._ Outside games, almost all big applications have binaries for Linux, Mac and Windows, simply because it makes financial sense to do so. Although most Linux users prefer using open-source software, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from using proprietary software but social stigma. - 'The video editors are often really crappy.' That's a _really_ specific type of program. But again, if you don't want to use open-source video editors, don't. There's nothing stopping you. - 'Most of the programs tend fo crash regularly and for no reason.' Ok, now this is an area where I can give my own experience. In my experience, virtually nothing has crashed ever, despite using a rolling-release distro (with 'unstable' binaries). I'm racking my brains to think of an example but the only thing I can think of is chromium becoming unresponsive once so I had to kill it. All other times my system has become unresponsive was because I completely ran out of RAM and swap, which would crash your system on any OS. - 'Most stuff is below par, horribly designed, poorly maintained, crashes often.' It's like you're talking about a separate OS. What kind of programs are you using? In general, if there's an open-source and proprietary version of the same type of software, the open-source version is usually better. This is simply because a lot more people can see the source code and make suggestions. These people could be anyone from a full-on maintainer to just someone who noticed a bug or inefficiency and decided to contribute. You're also acting like the proprietary software isn't crappy - Microsoft and Adobe products, for example, are usually awful, crappy, bloated products that should have collapsed under their own weight a long time ago. Admittedly, I don't use many GUI programs, but the open-source ones I've used (ungoogled Chromium, Gimp, LibreOffice) have always seemed much more responsive and _much_ less buggy than proprietary ones (Teams [web app], all the Office products [school computers], any in-built Windows application ever [school computers again]). That's not even including the command-line programs, which have always have worked flawlessly and lightning-fast. - 'The only bar on releasing software to Linux that Linux Users are proud about is simply that it's open source.' Sure, that's the *main* thing that we're proud about. But if software has any bugs or apparent lack of functionality, issues will be created on that topic and someone will fix it. The more major the bug, the more people try to fix it and for longer. Software crashing would count as a _major_ bug if it's reproducible (i.e. it hasn't happened to a single user only once) and happens in a somewhat realistic scenario (i.e. it's not a text editor crashing if it tries to open a text file a terabyte in size). That's also to say nothing of people who will comb through the source code for the express purpose of making it more efficient or fixing yet-undiscovered bugs (yes, those people do exist, which is why net upgrade sizes are sometimes negative), or the fact that open-source software usually has no telemetry. - 'It's the most fragile and lowest quality hacked up thing I've ever used.' Man, what have you been _doing_ to your desktop? I don't know what distros you've been using so I can't comment on that. But terrible-quality desktops are exceptions, not the norm. If you want stability, use Debian or Arch. I use Arch and I just don't really need to do anything to my system. After installing and setting it up, issues very rarely appear (and the ones that do I can fix quickly. Apart from _one_ which is my system failing to mount /boot upon upgrading the kernel. Should fix that, but there is absolutely no hurry, seeing as I can probably use my current kernel version for years). Oh, and desktops like Manjaro aren't actually good because they _are_ actually buggy and poorly-designed. But I will admit. Because so few people use Linux compared to the general market, there is a genuine lack of open-source software and dedicated maintainers of existing software. It would be fantastic if companies like Microsoft made all their products open-source, but we all know that will never happen.
It's all in user preferences and market viability, from a techie's perspective it's a great desktop variant for any operating system . After 10 years of working with Linux and long time after I installed Windows 10 side by side I just play around with both and find it very interesting that how with open source in the modern computing has increased an operator's role to almost a system administrator.
Because there are KDE and Gnome, so instead of focus on one window manager and make it perfect with great API, nobody knows which one will be the winner tomorrow.
Well this video was years ago, and linux was struggling with its everything back in the day. Everything that could be said to Linux was that, it is secure as a kernel and it manages resources better than its counterparts. Both Windows and MacOs. To this day, all of them evolved. Windows 10 is a solid operating system but its still not on the Linux level of management. I get why is like that. Microsoft knows the solution but Windows should be backwards compatible with other softwares as well, and that's what Microsoft is really good at. Supporting old software for their operating system. This is not something common on the linux community since nearly most of the programs are open source and updated version will be free and all but this is something that Windows must do. For the answer of that question, Linus is kind of right. However, linux does not need pre-installed devices, someone who is willing to use linux distrubitions are mostly doing it for the sake of the linux. Just using linux is the reason to that loads of distrubitons. And that is the reason why linux hasn't taken off even today. Lots of distrubitons means lots of confision for the average consumer. Maybe some of us are not average on that topic, but you get the idea. Why Android has taken off at the mobile industry? Because it is known as Android, not linux. It IS running a linux kernel, its is actually a solid piece of linux, but is not know as one. Even the example that Linus gives here is on this topic, Linux comes to consumer computers as the form of Chromebook, or to be more specific, Chrome OS. Open source is good, all distrubitions are linux are there for a reason and I am aware of that. Linux as a kernel is more than just a kernel anymore. Most of the drivers and other functionalities are supported from the kernel level, which means that most of the hardware on the planet earth should be able to run linux now. But the reason it is faling is the lack of doinance amongs distrubitions. And yes you are right on the both topics, creating one more dominant distrubition will create the 15th standart to the market, where there are already 14 standarts are ready and waiting. In other words, would bring more players in the field thus changing nothing. And forcing some distrubition on is just wrong to the idea of the Linux. Developing for one operating system, especially one distrubition on mind will kill the community and it is not happening as you can see. Linux is kinda doomed on that aspect. Average consumer doesn't care about freedom and open-source, they don't even care what those mean. They just want to get work done and this is something that is kind of hard with Linux. I hope you get my point. It is something that looks silly, but it is already true. Look at Apple products and customers of Apple. Most of them buy products because of the "ecosystem", and that ecosystem is basically a simple one interaction center of all of the tech they got. Macbooks, iMacs, iPhone and iPad's are all use the same kind of UI. Windows devices are just windows devices, buying another windows device would not change the place of a setting or some specific funciton that you are looking for. But that is some mess in the various distros between Linux. That is the problem linux have, which they can't fix without changing the actual name, "Linux".
It’s not really a problem, having so many distributions, particularly because this allows for someone to get their PhD in CS by writing their own version of Linux. Such things of “too many options” is just a psychological problem among humans known as analysis paralysis and the paradox of choice (“everything is greener on the other side”). The actual way to solve this “problem”, is not by changing Linux, it is instead to start genetically modifying humans to not have analysis paralysis and the paradox of choice.
It's kinda sad how he keeps patting google on the back for their Android even though Android is far from pure Linux and google is figuring out a way on how to replace it with their Fuchsia project.
I'm fairly sure nothing will come of Fuchsia- There's literally no features smartphones need that aren't already available on Android or at least on Linux. We haven't had a single worthwhile innovation on a smartphone in nearly 5 years now.
@Jacob i's a desktop, it's a laptop, it's the console under my TV, it's a handheld. It's whatever I want it to be and can use it any way I want - just like a desktop. Can't say the same about consoles.
@@blacksmithie You think people wouldn't use a console as a desktop if they had the chance? A console is an incredible price/performance deal! I'd buy a console if it wasn't a locked system. Look at the market! Every manufacturer creating half-tablet half-laptop PCs, ultrabooks, all-in-one PCs... Like you said, the lines are getting blurry, but that's because there's a demand for a PC in every form factor. Your PS3 running Linux is a bad example, because you gotta root the console to make it half-work (and iirc the guy who made it work got sued and jailed). It's neither easy nor worth the effort. As good as ARM might be, a chromebook is the only thing on which ChromeOS comes pre-installed and while the sales were good, the vast majority was enterprise sales. That makes no difference, we already have Linux running on servers everywhere, that takes care of the enterprise side. Steam Deck will put a linux in the hands of millions - not business-to-business millions, real, dumb, end-user millions! That will create a demand for stuff running natively on that thing for the performance benefit and if it runs on the Deck, it will run on anything running Linux. It single handedly solves the chicken-egg scenario of why people aren't using Linux/why there's no software for Linux. Nobody likes being OS-dependent, but ironically Valve was the first to realize how much that means.
@@blacksmithie Once again I don't understand how you compare a console to a smartphone. A console being a locked PC is a lot better comparison. Ultimately they're both just boxes sitting next to your display except one of them allows you to do whatever you want. As far as mobile/handlheld gaming goes, I doubt many people will use the Deck to actually play games on the go. More like move from one place to the next, sit down in comfort and then use it, which would petty much make the equivalent of a laptop anyways. The laptop has the advantage of having a keyboard and a bigger screen. The Deck has the advantage of being way cheaper than equivalent laptop hardware. While the primary purpose is a gaming, the marketing does not at all try to sell it off as just your Steam library on the go. On the contrary, the emphasis is on it being a handheld PC.
@@blacksmithie Yeah they use the Switch undocked - while lying in bed or something. They still don't play "on-the-go". What the Deck will be used for depends entirely on how easy SteamOS makes. Running Linux on a PS3 - especially after the update which requires you to jailbreak it - is hard. But if e.g. the Deck would automatically switch from Big Picture Mode to the desktop environment as soon as you dock it or connect a display or kb/m? It's all about accessibility.
In my opinion it is not only the preinstalls, but also the microsoft office software itself. Big Companies have administrators to install operating systems for their users. But for a lot of simple business tasks the people stick to excel, word or powerpoint and the user experience of open source alternatives is not great. This might apply for other commercial software.
In Brazil Dell sells computers for consumers with Ubuntu pre-installed. Maybe half the systems in their website is Linux because it makes it cheaper for the consumer.
Linux was a fun project for me, but I currently can't see it replacing Windows for me. Windows 10 is pretty horrible, but it is the ease of use and speed I like. Reinstalling an OS is no big deal I think. It is very streamlined nowadays, but getting additional features to work is a nightmare on Linux, if you are just an average (+a bit tech savy) user like me. It took me 4 hours to get the AMD Linux drivers to install on MX Linux. 2 hours to get Wine to install... Hell, I couldn't get sound through HDMI after 5 hours of trying... For every little detail you have to check "insert your search engine of choice" and how to deal with the issue. Only to find that it works on Ubuntu, but not other Distros. So you have to start again. 25 years ago Windows 95 was already much easier to use, though of course more limited. I would rather use less time on troubleshooting and more time on focusing on my hobbies and work, so Windows it is. It is sort of a middle ground between MacOS (which I despise) and Linux right now and fits me perfectly.
Summary: Linus says it's because Linux doesn't come pre-installed on desktops. That prevented it from gaining traction with casual users. He contrasts it with mobile, where Linux is huge because it's part of Android.
My experience with Linux reckons that it'll never see mainstream success on a desktop because of a handful of core factors. There's too much choice, it's not user-friendly, it's not intuitive, and many distros feel like beta software with janky and unfinished components. Don't get me wrong, I like and use Linux for certain tasks. But it feels like a hobbyist OS and the exact inherent nature of Linux with its hundreds of available distros ironically makes a mockery out of it. I mean if some random guy can just install a bunch of his favorite programs and release it as a whole new OS then that doesn't sound very professional by any means.
Microsoft has a divisions that test end user usability. They bring in IT Pros to test Server UI. They pay gamers for testing games. They get real desktop users to test office apps. Linux desktop environment is designed for the developers that built the software because Linux is tested by developers and end users. The Linux developer community acts as if it despises the end user. A bug report in Linux is replied with "fix it yourself". Microsoft support would capture bugs, forward to dev, and patches written.
@@arghyaS Never heard of it. But there are hundreds of dead distributions as well. And kernel bugs are not resolved in distributions (kernel is Torvalds people). Centos, RedHat, Knoppix, uC Linux (microcontrollers), and Suse as well as OS/X and Windows. Had a working relastionship with Canonical. Personally I prefer Slackware, came from the first linux distribution, Soft Landing Systems. First "make" was Linux kernel 0.91. My computer "toys" all run NetBSD or FreeBSD because Linux has become bloatware like Windows. Pity Linux hasn't been able get Hurd working.
@@arghyaS No. I with Canonical through Canonical Sales Engineer. The company had a "Ubuntu for Devices" product for phones (huge market). It was a secondary project for me. This was just before Microsoft made Windows Phone free to phone manufacturers. Most Linux installs break phone security so no more calls. The Ubuntu Phone could install over Android without breaking phone security. I had installed the earlier version on a throw away Kindle. After all this time there is still no interest in Linux Phone (actually Android is a Linux kernel with a Dalvik (Java Micro Edition clone) display interface instead of a Window Manager.
Using Windows, Mac, and Linux. Each has its own benefits. But for the most part, I'm using Windows, due to the main software I'm working with is available for this OS only.
Let's do the Five Why's method: (1) Why is Linux not dominant on the desktop? Because OEMs don't preinstall it. (2) Why don't OEMs preinstall it? Leave answers below.
It's games. That's the only reason. Sure, after MS won and dominated the market they found other ways to kinda lock you in their system, MS Office is one of them. But games was the main reason. Had quality games been built for Linux instead of Windows, MS would have no chance, no matter how many offices they make. Business people are usually the last ones to adopt anything, they just go with the flow, the safe route, what is already popular. Steam and Proton is awesome, but it's too late now though, isn't it?
I like Linux, but I totally understand you. I admit that boot into Windows when doing 3D cad etc. Linux just isn't good for all usage, though there's really nice opensource set of programs these days available that can cover most basic and even heavy usage.
The moment When the look and feel of Windows have changed was the opportunity to win a bit of the market. Why do constructors have not preinstalled linux ( free) is the key...
I think drivers used to be an issue, and for me personally, at least when I played them, it was games. In my experience, each OS is terrible in their own special way.
Drivers are still an issue. I tried installing Linux in a newly bought HP laptop of mine and the drivers that allowed Wi-Fi connection just weren't working, apparently because there was no official driver for that specific piece of hardware. It took me two days (and a complete reinstall of the OS) to actually get some driver from Github to work without colliding with the preinstalled, useless one. I'm not extremely tech savvy myself but if I'm supposed to in order to even connect to the Internet then, well, yeah, Linux ain't taking off on desktop any time soon. The thing also runs out of battery fairly quickly, about twice as fast as when my mother uses Windows on it (neither of us using much processing power, she'd use MS Office Word and Chrome, I'd use Firefox and a text editor). I read it's a common phenomenon and was recommended to install TLP, which I did although I couldn't notice much of a difference.
@@agustinl2302 weird that’s happened to you, you should check the power management settings and configure it up properly my asus s14 has almost double the battery life it used to have on Windows just because of the less bloat and lower idle ram and cpu usage
"They're all terrible" is a terrible rationalization. There was a certain fox who took that attitude and we're still talking about it a couple of thousand years later.
As a Windows user who has tried Linux a few times (unsuccessfully), my main obstacle is that everything is done through the console, I'm used to navigate through the files in a graphic environment without having to write lines of code for everything I want to do. Also games, in Windows you google the game, you download it, click install, and done, the game is ready. I tried with the same game in Linux (Planet Base was the game) using Wine and the colors were really bad, everything was red
You do not need the console for most things, it is just more efficient and easier to support. Enter Line: "some-command -with -some -options | some -more -stuff " is just simpler as saying: "press button A, then B, then go to tab C, search D and change it to E". You can copy paste the command line and it works in all language settings, in the GUI you often have to translate it to your language. And it is very easy to script things or automate things, just write all the commands in a textfile, line by line, and execute it. This is much harder with a GUI.
@@quelorepario Yes, indeed but that's also the prolem. people are keen to visual instruction/guidelines which terminal/cmd lacks. and not everyone is tech-savvy enough to remember every types of command and all of its parameters. i'm myself a really cmd type person, sometimes accessing app or trying to find some info is much easier using command than just use mouse and search for the application using UI. but it's because i love tech and already spent much times around computer tinkering and do stuff around it that i ended up prefer the terminal compared to UI. and again, not everyone is tech-savvy and would love to spend times learning something that is harder to remember
It's very in character for Linus to say "I started this operating system for desktops" despite the fact that he started only kernel, and it was made into OS mostly by other people.
This should be changing as I have installed Linux on several of our machines due to Windows not having sufficient support for their latest operating system. I am my friend's geek girlfriend. If they have issues with windows I highly recommend Ubuntu and Linux Mint. The windows support desk told me that two of my computers were trashed.. Funny how they work perfectly with Linux.
i wanted to install ubuntu on my dad's laptop but he thought that if it's free then it's probably shit. can't really blame him - we used to live in soviet union. that might also be a reason why people don't like linux - if it's free there must be a catch.
I'm a software developer. So I do use Linux on a daily basis. I like it, it helps me be more productive (compared to Windows at least). But for people who do not live in the command line: what is the business case for switching to Linux? Cause as I see it, there basically is none. Businesses don't use Windows because it's great. They use it because they have their LDAP and they can control the machines of their employees. People, generally, know how to use Windows. As I see it, learning how to use a completely different OS just to do the same things is nonsensical.
You should check *Windows Terminal* , *Powershell Core* , *Git bash* , *Docker* and of course *WSL2* . Windows is a breeze to develop applications and write software even for other platforms including Linux systems.
@@_azer0s you say that Windows is less productive for software development compared to Linux and I say the opposite, that's my point, that software developing on Windows nowadays can be more productive, it's just that *you* are familiar working with Linux. I include some basic Windows dev tools because you seem you don't know about them. Of course I can understand that *you* , as a developer, are feeling more productive working on Linux, but that's not a rule, people are productive on systems they feel comfortable working with and that may be Windows, Linux and/or MacOS. Also FYI (because you say it like it's only a thing of Windows), LDAP server can be installed and configured to Linux servers like CentOS (www.itzgeek.com/how-tos/linux/centos-how-tos/step-step-openldap-server-configuration-centos-7-rhel-7.html) and Ubuntu clients (computingforgeeks.com/how-to-configure-ubuntu-18-04-ubuntu-16-04-lts-as-ldap-client/).
@@christoslytras7912 No. I said that Windows is less productive for *me* . I know plenty of people who are just as productive on Windows (except for when they do need Linux in form of WSL or a VM 😉). I know that there is OpenLDAP. But tell that to a bank or other massive corporation that has been with Windows Server for literally decades. All I am saying was: while I *love* Linux, there is little to no business value in switching to Linux. I think you misunderstood me there, m8.
@@_azer0s Yes, I now understand what you mean and I agree with you. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Windows fanboy even though I'm using Windows for more than 20 years for developing, I do use everything from Linux servers, Linux desktops, MacOS, whatever I need to get the job done. I'm saying that Windows can be a very productive developing environment. As for Linux on Windows and WSL, there is *WSL2* that is still in development and it will be released on the April Windows 10 update and that has a *real Linux kernel released by Microsoft!* that sits on top of Windows kernel, thus WSL2 is superfast compared to WSL1 and has no restrictions and it works pretty good with Windows. I have tested it out and I am thrilled by its performance! (github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel)
I tried to install 3 versions of linux and none of them worked on my computer. I tried to understand why for couple of days, but when people talk about linux it's like totaly different, high-tech language i dont understand no matter hard i google it
Games, office, Adobe etc. Its all about software compatability. Android is so popular because almost every app made is compatible with Android, which is why its preinstalled..
Blame the companies then, they are the ones who need to port their software (while keeping the quality) and offer the support, especially if it's propietary software, if it were at least open source someone could still fork it and create and overall good Linux port. Don't blame the OS because Linux itself has no jurisdiction in that field
As someone who is quite fond of Linux, it's kinda also important not to try to gloss over that it's an OS that still depends very heavily on the terminal. That is going to turn off most desktop users, like it or not. Technophiles will be willing to learn command line, sure. But most people who use computers are not enthusiasts. Until a Linux distro exists where literally everything from top to bottom can be set up and maintained as easily as it can in Windows, and I mean easily as it pertains to the average user, not the most technically adept, you just aren't going to see it taking the desktop market away from Microsoft.
it is but I find that I installed peppermint instead and it did a fantastic job at being lightweight and efficient at work you just install libreoffice and then you're good
Pre-installed is the outcome of a product that works for the average consumer. It is not the way you get there. It’s like saying your restaurant is failing because it has no customers. Imagine if Dell magically decided to start pre-installing only Ubuntu on their machines tomorrow. Think about drivers, user-friendliness, and application support. How do you think that would really go? The restaurant is failing because the food sucks, the menu is huge, and you have to cook the meal yourself, bus the table, and do the dishes.
That's why I like Linux. It's just vanilla OS with no commercial purposes. It doesn't force you to update, doesn't follow what you searched in internet and bring your history all local computers. A week ago I searched a bit about MacBook Then MacBook ads showing off in every phone and laptop connected wifi. It's disturbing.
Time, which while all have the same amount, is often allocated to other endeavors. It circles back to the argument of: How is it better, and what benefits will I easily reap from putting time into doing this change? Will it make my entire life easier?
No, preinstalls won't popularize Linux as a Desktop anytime soon. I installed Ubuntu on my Windows laptop, and the user experience is hideous. The number of times I had to fiddle with something on the command line is unacceptable as a consumer product made for the general public. After a year, I bought bluetooth earbuds and realized they don't work out of the box. I decided to switch back to Windows right there.
Why are you scared of the terminal? All commands you as an end user would want to run will be well documented and available for you to copy-paste from an article or forums post. Some hardware isn't compatible out of the box, yes, but that isn't "Linux"'s fault. The creators of that product specifically choose to develop it for Windows or IOS or whatever it may be. Ubuntu can't magically make all the drivers some company didn't want to make
@@Anonymous4045 I think the general rule is that you have to make desktop OS accessible to the casual users in order for them to mass adopt it. Linux is simply not casual user friendly enough.
I my opinion Adobe is to be blamed for now. Many people install Windows operating system themselves. It's IMHO the software companies that don't make softwares for these. It's primarily the reason why Google managed to kill Windows Phone as a main stream operating system by not making Google apps for it even though it did come pre-installed on mobile devices and had a great potential.
Very thoughtful answer! I'm a #freesoftware guy and I understand Linus' stand. All things aside, if you read the email Linus sent in his initial release of Linux which worked with limited hardware, he didn't aspire it to become something "professional" like GNU, rather like Minix. It was the people who packaged everything together and still called it Linux. FSF saw it as a discrediting move and thought Linus trying to steal their hard work. This began the ever long tussle between Free Software and #opensource.
![Aalto Talk with Linus Torvalds [Full-length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MShbP3OpASA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Aalto Talk with Linus Torvalds [Full-length]](/img/tr.png)
I like his Tech Tips videos.
LOL
He's thinking about retiring, though.
you were great in the avengers
Kek
@@kushalpokharel2538 :)
This guy sounds like he knows what he's taking about, he should write his own kernel or something..
This guy has no sense of authenticity, he should copy paste a comment or something..
Have you been living under a rock? Or you just another one of those copy/paste trolls?
But there's no tool for him to collaborate with people he meets on the internet on the kernel. Maybe heb should make some kind of collaborative tool and call it Git or something
@@TheOriginalJohnDoe ROFL
Good attempt at gaining likes
I use Linux on my Desktop every day (in the last 12 years). I starve for a commercial level photography software (like Photoshop or Affinity Photo). Probably this is the issue - lacking commercial level software support for Linux.
@⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ Yeah that's pretty much what my experience with Linux was like.
*shit breaks
*have to identify the shit first
*chase a few dead ends before I finally find something that describes my specific issue
*apply the fix by using a magic spell on the command line
*shit works again. barely.
@@centralintelligenceagency9003 I use Fedora, which is known to be on a bleeding edge of development, for 7 years and it happened only twice. First time it happened of a buggy update and it was resolved same day. Second time, I fucked up graphic card drivers. Since Fedora's release cycle is hectic, I do not see any problem with that what's more I am more then happy with it.
Some distros hate closed source softwares, even more hate for commercial softwares. That's the problem, the closed minded of some open source developers.
Genuine question here: Why linux? I know nothing about operating systems but what can you do on linux, that you can't on windows, that justifies 'starving for photoshop' to you?
@@Vlozh My experience. I was curious and installed Fedora as second OS so that i could "learn" Linux. Few months later I realized that i do not use Windows at all. Faster, simpler, no distractions, stays out of my way and let me focus on whatever I do.
His mind is pulling him back from saying "It's not for noobs"
Well, phones with Android can and are successfully used by mostly noobs (non-tech people). So, with desktop it is something different.
That sort of attitude is what keeps the average, not so tech savvy person from using Linux distros. Thankfully, in 2019, things are looking different. Within a few years, Linux will get a massive share of users. Proprietary will always lead, sadly, that too off the backs of open source contributors
@@Gamez4eveR That's offensive
@@circuit10 true tho
@@Gamez4eveR you seem to not know the difference between truth and your own fantasies
7,5 years later (November 2019): Nothing has changed.
Linux has taken over (Android)
@Santiago Montero But the problem with linux is you can't play games on it and is not suitable for entertainment.
I switched from win 10 to manjaro and I haven't looked back. The support forums also aren't full of indians talking in broken english which helps.
@@boxingexpert9065 It's fine for both of those things. There are many native Linux games and Wine runs quite a few of the non-supported ones. What do you mean by "entertainment"?
I've switched from Windows 10 to Manjaro KDE. That's a change
Well, linux is also confusing in the sense that it has a gazillion distributions. There isn't just "the linux". There is ubuntu, there is linux mint and so forth. It's already hard to understand what the difference of all those operating systems is and I'm a pretty tech savy person. Of course you could read it up and learn all that stuff, but that's where it already fails, because no average user will ever do that.
sounds like people in game that don't read instructions then get frustrated when they lose.
believe it or not... you had to laern windows, you had to learn about every device that you've ever plugged in and the only thing you didnt learn was all that clutter in your registry.
lol technology fails because you had to read the manual.
give me a break.
I know that it may sound rediculous to you, but actually technology really fails because people have to read the manual. That's why Apple is so popular. Apple is the only company that fully understands that most people are complete idiots when it comes to technology and that you have to make something very restrictive and completly impossible to fail even when you don't read the manual. Believe me, I work in marketing and if you want a product that will be successful with average consumers, then even the dumbest person in the world has to be able to operate it without failing. I like tech and have no problem using linux (just recently installed lbuntu on an atom n270 netbook just for the lulz), but that's completly not how the average person works and that's exactly why linux will never reach the mass consumer market if the situation stays like it is.
i think your misunderstanding the average user. i will not dismiss your point because your making valid point but your statement are too iron (which i get cause you need to drive a point.)
also it may sound ridiculous to me but i can't sense a feeling that i was disrespectful on the last comment so i do wish to apologise.
everyone whos either against or with windows actually owns or have dualbooted a linux succesfully.
no one has ever failed to reach the linux desktop...these are not your average user -points sake
these are your cs or the tech savvy (people in a somewhat techy environment)
linux believe it or not is an option in many custom built pc's (mostly gamers) but then like only gamers enter that store.
the average user does not apply their own devices...they get network companies or the I.T guy
these same people usually buy low end pc's usually dell or lenovo.
the only thing they care out is the ability to see thier files and put in usb's.
they usually buy their computers at megastores at the pc aisle.
nowadays they walk in apple stores cause apple looks nice.
if only linux had their own stores, that'd be nice.
so the difference here is that some people like their cars pro-tuned.
some people like their cars tuned OEM.
so what linus is saying is 100% correct.
just to add. i think in 1991 linux wouldve been confusing without google.
i needed a manual to dualboot. i didn't need a manual to make my OS linux.
jlinux also doesnt have a website with 100 versions on it. it has one and persistence usb .exe
windows wouldve asked you to do the same thing online.
you put that in click next a few times and voila full linux. (it even asks you if you want to download all the drivers and codec)
you put in a windows disk that costed you in, a couple of next clicks and voila full windows, it never asks you if you want to download certain codecs, you have to refer to the manufacturers manual.
so at the end of day the above average people do read manuals like modems and printers and such.
There isn't really a difference. I mean, of course there is, but not really at a core level. It's just a different kind of sugar on top of the cake
I haven't checked on Linus in 20 some-odd years but I have to say, his English has greatly improved from what I remember 20 years ago.
Yeah he used to sink when his brain go active
@@Facebook-StevenSchmidlap why do you feel the need to say stuff like this on the internet?
@@Facebook-StevenSchmidlap you're not gaining anything by citing your "truth" on the internet.
john doe whom did he “steal” it from?
And can you really “steal” something when the source is available?
Linux originally was a fork of Minix, which was written for educational purposes; nor did the Minix license make what Linus did illegal or unethical
Ergo, your claim is wrong and stupid
@@Facebook-StevenSchmidlap We have to dispute or discount "facts" that you gave, when you gave no sources or info to back them up?
It works that if you make a claim, you have to back it up. Not that you make any random claim and we have to somehow find sources to disprove it.
I could make anything up on the spot and you'd have a difficult time conjuring sources to disprove me. Don't be a fucking idiot.
While what he is saying is correct he also misses the other huge factor - the application ecosystem.
Android did not succeed just because it came pre-installed (symbian OS and windows OS failed when they were pre-installed as well) but also because it had lots of useful application providing great user experience.
That's where linux in its current state cannot beat the other OSs
He has mentioned that in a Debian Q&A
Pluse how insanly fragmented and non userfriendly Linux is for non Tech peopl . Linux community also sucks ass .
@noodlenoggin you're right windows doesn't have a community. It has a million communities. All Linux has is people spending 90% of their time explaining why Linux is better and how it "is perfect for their use case" while ignoring everyone else's use cases
@noodlenoggin yea and I've never left a review on amazon apart for when something breaks.
And youre right, all linux users do is talk about linux. Its like when you had a playstation as a kid and all your friends had xboxs. And really, customisation is reall all linux has going for it, and lets be honest, customisation on an OS is not something that anyone needs unless hosting a very particular server of some kind. 99% of the people who say linux customisation is why they want it are just changing the look of the windows and task bar
Linux makes you completely depend on googling and searching around for answers, looking through community posts, nothing can be done without that.
Point in case: Why the hell doesn't popular app-stores sort by popularity or something?
Like Pop! OS & Elementary OS just randomly sorts every single application, at the top of the "games" category are dozens of absolutely random dogshit worse-than-flash-games games before anything like Steam & Lutris. There are no options for sorting either
I’m surprised he made no mention of a good user experience for the consumer. This is critical.
Dude just type hfhkhdjkkmgfd in the terminal /s
@@vex123
Sounds lazy if linux is free open source community built software.
@Serg M That’s interesting. I am a longtime Mac user and currently use Windows 10 for business reasons. I prefer either of them to any Linux UI I have been exposed to so far.
@Serg M
Mac is trash. Safari corrupted for me back in the day, and it has ECC slower ram.
Linux is too much of a hassle if you run into a snag to make it worth my time. If you have some nuance involved in say running ancient software, good luck getting support for it in say forums or anywhere else. You might as well be at the point if you want to fix things, youre programming the solution yourself which is an enormous turn off because by default it means if you wanted to get things done expect it to take a million years to get any sort of volume out, at least for what im doing. Plus its unreasonable to do all of this work for a platform almost no one on a dedicated computing device say on someones desk actually uses in any meaningful numbers. If I ever messed with linux again, it would purely be for server use.
@Serg M
Its pretty simple.
Example:
1936x1089 internal
1920x1080 actual pixel rendering to native scaling
I dont think anyones going to notice the missing fraction of a percent at the borders, cock it up though since the vertical number is odd. It would give us the capacity for better resolving at the screens edges though. A true injection flavor RTX hybrid, though thats stretching things a bit.
I think another major reason it is not popular on the desktop is because of one of the strong points of Linx, the number of choices. There are so many distros and so many people who are interested in Linux get so intimidated by the number of distros they just give up because they worry they will break something.
Used Linux once, Mint was afraid as fuck to use it, noticed it was more straightforward than Windows, was easier to understand, and used less of my computer resource, it was damn impressive for normal web browsing and internet stuff, but I missed a lot of my games, and other things, it was a formidable experience, but, I came back to windows this monstrosity of software because I needed to play my games and get some work done.
@@terciofelipeoliveirafrance2228 I hope you've heard about the linux subsystem for windows
Linux is basically 1000 OS which use the same base, jsut not comparable to WIN/MacOS
His English is phenomenal.
He's American. But yeah, considering an ever larger portion of the population simply refuses to learn English, I guess it can be viewed as an achievement.
@@RiwenX born in Finland, gained US citizenship in 2010
@@RiwenX pretty ignorant of you, ngl
Lol so ironic Americans make most mistakes while speaking English
His C is even better
A Linux distro to be successful must be able to do EVERYTHING through the Gui, using the terminal must be optional, as in Windows and in all popular operating systems, then the games and pre-installs will arrive.
You can't do EVERYTHING on Windows through GUI either, hence the command line.
@@polymorphicprocrastination5345 Ok, not everything but almost, on Windows I used the terminal only to see the ip address, for the rest I almost never needed it (maybe I have used it a dozen times in 10 years, and I am a developer) on Ubuntu (for example) I had to use it 20 times in the same day, even for very simple things.
@@lucamartino100 only 20 times…
Using the terminal is faster, less resource heavy, and what not. Linux Distributions must not fatten itself in size and memory usage with plethora of horrible and unnecessary GUI processing (and other interconnecting things).
You had to use the terminal 20 times on a single day-now take the average of about 4 clicks per task for doing the same via GUI; 20*4 = 80; imagine yourself moving your mouse and clicking 80 times and waiting for the GUI to load. *That. Is. Horrible.*
The people who wants to use a Linux Distribution must alter their deplorable and technologically aberrant mindset, not Linux distributions.
@@eeriemyxi Using the terminal is more efficient, but using the GUI is more satisfying and intuitive (at least for me and for many other people), efficiency is not always a priority, when you eat something you do it as quickly as possible because it is more efficient or you just enjoy the meal? Ok, the terminal may be more satisfying for you, but we are not all the same person and in most cases there isn't a correct and a wrong way to do things, you can choose the one you prefer. Clarified this, I did not say that there should be no distros without GUI, but there should be at least one distro with a GUI that allows you to do almost anything, so we're all happy, you use your distro without GUI and I use mine with the GUI.
Most desktop users just want a friendly and functional desktop that is intuitive. Linux in my opinion is too complicated for them. If there is no demand for Linux, manufacturers will not push for preinstalled Linux desktops.
I tried to get my friends to try Linux and they come back and tell me they want a Desktop that will work for them and not work against them.... so yeah. Linux cannot penetrate the market because it is not preinstalled. For it to be preinstalled, Linux needs a window manager that rivals the "user friendliness" of Windows and Mac and not bleeding edge technology because that means nothing to the majority of desktop users.
It isn't about people not wanting it.. it is about Microsoft lobbying... This is a very known case which had it's peak in the 90s. Gaming too, MS makes so many demands for the hardware companies as they had the power to, that if they refused to ignore linux and cater only for windows mainly, they would lose such and so deals, in effect millions.
Anyway it is all illegal in free trading but we know US actually ain't about free trade, only their own products should be so.
(another digression). Anyway, it is also pretty well known, that games are and/or would be superior on the linux platform as in all other aspects (servers, phones, routers, etc, security). had this lobbying not been there (for direct-X vs opengl etc etc.).
if MS was banned from all world markets bar their own (U.S. ), your hardware would be giving you games far superior to what they spew out on the windows platform. I would say anything between 20-35%.
Mojito skurt Those days are long gone. Check out www.vgchartz.com and you will see that PC games only contribute about 5~10% of the most popular games sold, 90% are sold on consoles. Games nowadays are scale down to work on consoles so PC will have no problem running them. The PC elitist, the master race who are interested in maximizing everything is only but a small portion of the 5~10% of PC gamers. Companies like nVidia simply are not interested in supporting linux because there is no money to be made.
Linux UI is truly unfriendly. I would go as far as to say that it is hostile to the layman. Take the simplest of task: resizing a window. People tell me that in linux corner-grab and edge-grab is as hard as scoring a headshots. These simply things, small things that MS and Apple does so well is why average users will immediately pick them over Linux. Hence no demand from the layman and people who would use Linux can build them anyways so no point for manufacturers to pre-install them anyways.
Not many are interested in getting more out their hardware. Many dont even know what hardware they have. They just want something easy and friendly.
you did not even understand what you just wrote by yourself. There is no Linux desktop at all. Linux has no user interface. it just does not exist.
There are desktop that you CAN USE on Linux-like-operating-systems like Gnome, KDE or XFCE, which ARE super simple to use and highly user-friendly.
in FACT, windows by itself is not user-friendly. it is just "normal", because everybody uses it and everybody know how to use it.
An also Apples OSX is super duper user unfriendly. This is an UI what is working hardly against you.
Rhiji
You do realize that when most people say "Linux" it implies the entire package that includes whatever desktop environment right? Are you another one of those who like to tell me how I should refer to the kernal as Linux and the enire system as GNU/Linux to avoid ambiguity? *facepalm*
Back to the topic:
Have you tried helping friends and family switch to Linux much? I am simply posting the general reaction I get from them. As a matter of fact, after installing multiple distros and desktop environment for them to try, they finally went back to Windows even when they only use spreadsheets and browsers 99% of the time.
Some of the complains: Why is the scroll bar in Gnome so narrow. Why are the window borders in XFCE so narrow. Dont tell me to tell them that they can download as many themes as they like or that they can customize and make their own or that they can alt-drag etc etc. They are not interested in that. They just want something simple, fuctional and practical out of the box.
p/s:.... your last statement.... do u mean OSX is unfriendly or friendly(does not work against the user)....
Rhiji
Rebuke??? You rebuked me??? You do realize that my statement that says "I know people who find linux to be too unfriendly" cannot be rebuked right?
All I have to say to you is: Learn to communicate in a polite and civil manner and realize that not everyone has the same preferences.
Just because the people you meet and help are happy and does not have any complains means that --NO ONE ELSE-- will complain??
....... you know what? ....Actually, you are so ....different and special... that I do not think I am equiped to communicate with you.
Eleven years later and we have the Steam Deck leading the way as a machine with Linux pre-installed. Linux is in a very good spot right now for the desktop. It's a stretch, but a version of Steam OS for gaming laptops might be a good idea.
Yeah, and Microsoft decided to help Linux by making one stupid decision after another.
You idiot, steam os is not a desktop replacement for your PC. It's literally a separate environment for running games specifically. You would need arch Linux os to replace window os if you want it to be like steam deck equivalent since it is running on that OS. Holy hell normies smoothbrain like you should not be near a PC..
There are laptop manufacturers like Vant PC or Slimbook that sell their laptopts with the Linux distro that you choose preinstalled (they also offer windows if you pay the license). Those laptops have a really competitive price and really good specs. I hope more companies would do that too.
No TrackPoint though
I'm not sure that that's really the main reason. I have not used preinstalled Windows in way over a decade. And I know many who haven't either.
But I just tried installing Debian on a machine and guess what? It didn't even contain a very basic Realtek network driver. That's not something a user should have to worry about.
It was like that 15 years ago already (back then - no driver for my graphics card) and I guess unfortunately, it still is today.
+notthere83 becose is not working!!! ,,, if you have a 2-3 years old laptop is
working , and must very hi spec for ubuntu,,, quad monitor , 5,1 audo ,
wifi card ,, not working ,,, if you are lucky and every hard ware work
ok ,, if something dont ,,, forget it it will never work ,, and you end
up craching the kernel and re install the os ,,
+notthere83
Trust me, that I get that shit on Windows constantly. Network drivers not being included is just one of the many fun things that happen here and there.
ugely with windows you go on the site of your divice donwlad and is working ,if is from a reputable brand , linux,, i buy a tp link wifi card ,plug it in linux can not conect to network, try to instal drivers , to upgrade and update , naw every time i plug the card pc freez and i need to hard reset a tp link with realtek chip ,, SirNilzey
stelio darkphotographer
I just keep backups of every type of network driver I ever use.
yep , me to i have backup of all my drivers the dont take a lot of space. becose sometimes new drivers are working well and company like dell or hp dont have drivers for old divices
Main reason- software compatibility
Александар Милојковић True but hardly ideal. Zbrush is not supported under Linux and I need that for work. The alternative is Blender which performance wise bottlenecks me way, way too early. For comparison I can sculpt in Zbrush up to 8 million or so polys per mesh, while blender basically freezes at 1.5 million. But it basically becomes unusable at 0.8 million. So yeah, alternatives exist, but they're hardly reliable.
Александар Милојковић true many people are lazy ...others simply just dont have the time. We have full time jobs now . I wish I had the spare time to learn a new OS . I like Ubuntu .
Not really. The problem is the lack of quality software exclusivity.
No one is going to switch to another operating system just to run the same applications they've been using all along, especially if it means learning things all over again in a new environment. What would be the worth in that?
Linux needs Linux exclusive, high quality, professional level applications, which would encourage users of other systems to switch because it is worth it to try the new system to get to the treasure inside.
Roland Taylor That's not going to happen without linux dedicated developers and alot of crowdfunding. Big corporations making applications want money, not a happy userbase.
Quorthon Plavi This is the sort of thinking that actually makes Linux be so unsuccessful as a desktop OS:
- "People are too Lazy to learn"
It's not that people are lazy, it's simply because for most people, the PC is just a mean to an end, they use it to get their jobs done, and that's it. Why would my parents CARE to learn linux if it's just to do the same thing they already do, but requires more time, just think about it, why?
You are an enthusiast, and you actually like to research and learn these things, but I'm sorry to tell you, you are the minority. Unless the devs start designing applications and the OS itself with the common people in mind, putting aside this arrogance that is so wide spread on linux communities, all will remain the same... but sometimes I think that's exactly the way they want it to be.
While I am no expert in the IT industry but IMO Linux not being available pre-installed in PCs is just an effect of a prior bigger cause, and not the real problem. We do see some laptops/PC having pre-installed Linux but most of the consumers just come back home and install Windows on it anyway. The real reason for Windows being popular lies in its scope of availability, and that's what lacking with Linux.
We saw Windows in our school labs and that's where our first interaction with computers started. We then move to college and there we see Windows again. All the cyber cafes, your neighbor or friend's computer has Windows installed. That's where the chime to get used to Windows starts, and it's so addicting that subconsciously we never move to any other platform.
Microsoft is also smart at distributing it's OS to the masses. Not just having them pre-installed in PC but actually allowing piracy to some extent (well, sort of). The reason pirated windows are available so freely and easily is because Microsoft does not take major actions to stop it. It rather allows it subtly. As more and more people get used to using Windows that way and thus never move on to something else. So, when these people complete their studies and move to companies to work, inherently and blindly the consensus to use Windows is made, and that’s when the orders to get pre-installed Windows PCs are made and that’s why we see Windows pre-installed I PCs. So basically, it’s an effect and not the real cause. And that’s why we see all the plethora of popular software too.
I don’t think Linux can do much at the moment to capture Windows addicted consumers, but it can certainly take some steps. Only Linux pre-installed is not going to work, hence Linux at least should go for dual boot systems. Users will then not wipe out Linux in order to install Windows on it, and this gives Linux a chance to get itself acquainted to the users
Social media campaign can also work for them. Have more and more conversation around the open source world and Linux and try to create an environment around. This will raise the curiosity of the people and urge them to try it. A dual boot PC will be handy at that instance.
Well that's enough internet for today.
You're so fucking dumb it is funny. Linux is AVAILABLE because it is FREE unlike Windows. But Windows STILL outshines and outsells Linux by 100 fold. But Linux is such a piece of shit it STILL can't hold a candle to Windows.
@@Facebook-StevenSchmidlap you created an account with an obviously fake name to write under every comment that Linus "stole" Linux. Either you have nothing else to do with your life or it's your job. One of the two.
@@АлексейГриднев-и7р You are one pompous yet stupid fucknut. You know nothing about my life, what I have to do or what my job is. Why don't you focus on the fact Torvalds is a thief rather than post your asinine comment. Fucking moron.
We used Ubuntu in school and tbh I'm very glad I'm using Windows now.
@@Facebook-StevenSchmidlap The desktop market is 1/15 of the phone market alone and is shrinking globally year after year. Seeing comments here it just seems like people have really hard time understanding what Torvalds actually does. He is the gatekeepers of Linux kernel that pretty much 80% of all global devices from Android, your smart TV, any smart fridge toaster or over 70% of the internet that us running from linux servers.
He cares about the linux kernel being maintained and I don't think he could have ever dreamed of a situation like this.
preinstalls are real now, but the software is still missing (word, excel, photoshop, AAA gaming, etc.)
I mean, Valve has gotten their games to work natively on Linux and are part of the Proton project to get as many Windows games to work on Linux as possible
@@snessy Exactly. From my hundreds of games on Steam and Epic, probably 3/4 are now are "runs close to or better than Windows native", while most of the rest is either "runs with issues" and some "doesn't run at all due to EAC/Microsoft Framework X", the remainder is very small.
for gaming it's getting WAY better now. It still has some crucial compatibility issues with software such as Word and Adobe.
If there was a way to run Office365 software (not that crappy online version), I would hop 100%. It's still an issue but it's getting better.
@@nelsonhernandez3259 considering the Valve console runs linux It will get way better support for gaming.
Gaming is better now and I think easy anti cheat is in talk with valve about how to get that working with Linux, but i think something people miss out on a lot is just the fact of how so much creative software isn't available for linux.
The fact the entire Adobe suite isn't on linux is a major hit.
This year was my jump into Linux and I happened to of already bought a new hp laptop. My next laptop will be a machine from system 76 to support a company making machines with linux preinstalled.
I didn't even know that brand existed, thank you! i will do the same.
Nice
I just checked out system 76 - I won't lie to you, it seems like overpriced garbage. Why not build your own pc and instal linux on it? Is it really worth it to pay huge money just to "support" some random company who happens to sell linux desktops?
@@Derp12 he speaking about laptop not pc
@@magicapyt framework laptop it is then
He was right about chromebooks. It's getting there.
Can't tell if you're being ironic
Yeah heads up in 2020 xD
Chrome books are shit
Too bad chrome os is garbage
Poop
Oh nice to see you again Tom Scott Tech Tips
It's all about the convenience and compatibility with windows. Plain and simple.
You can run windows applications on linux
people don't want to fight their OS for fun.
@@hh-vj8ppWe're aware, but for a lot of people it's not worth the large time investment, or for some commercial software you just can't.
just his name is huge enough for me to listen everything he said, huge salute to him.
You shouldn't look at Android. It is not a measure of Linux's success. It is Google's successful use of Linux.
it's a project started with the Linux kernal, id say it just as much importantance of Google's success.
@@Zarrx And I'm going to stick with the fact that reality reflects that Android popularity has nothing to do with Linux popularity
@@Gamez4eveR
China is shipping Linux by default now on the huawei so I guess we will see how that pans out, imo the Deepin DE looks very good, outside of the probable Chinease botnet.
To be honest, it wasn’t a question about popularity but rather by dominance of the market
still, android means it is linux
Times changed, ever since i switched to linux on desktop (Debian + KDE Plasma) i never looked back, the software management alone is light years ahead of windows
Robbie Goldman what do you mean software management
I agree. +675 Run something like Manjaro in a VM for a day or two and find out.
Bork i have it running already on vm manjaro+cinnamon sometimes it doesnt boot up maybe ill dual boot later
I have to disagree, if you hit a snag with a dependency and need cli intervention, a normal desktop user will crumble, fixing the issue is too complex for them and even trying to find what the problem may be is also going to be difficult. This is where Windows / Mac is superior.
"I'll use an OS with close to no commercial software which is vital for anyone having an IT job, shitty drivers, no video games and generally horrible UI design. My reasons? I am too stupid to secure my Windows system and too illiterate to understand that NT 6.1 is miles ahead of Linux for desktop use. But it's ok, the fact thaht I can install the most obscure Linux destros by religiously following a wiki page makes me smart as fuck" - Linux users
He's right on the pre-installs and It's not going to take off on desktop unless you make it really intuitive and easy to use (AKA no command line needed for 99% of usage). Have only ONE distribution with a great GUI. Every hardware addition is plug&play, and have Games and Software availability.
And of course Linux user can't agree on what that distro should even be, we sadly need a corporation or other large scale organization to make that choice
I'm a fairly techy guy, but I lost any and all desire to use Linux as my primary OS when I had to spend like 2 hours looking for working drivers for a WiFi adapter
@phone account It happened to me last week. Maybe I was just unlucky, but even still it was a huge pain in the ass
I think it varies on the distro you're trying to install as well as the hardware its being installed on. I tried installing Zorin OS on a cheap HP Stream laptop and had little to no issues. Tried putting it on a higher end HP Pavilion gaming laptop however and I had the Wifi issue as well. Wouldnt even let me connect using a LAN cable either. I like Linux, but I think there are still too many inconsistencies when it comes to trying to install it on multiple types of hardware and the different distros that could potentially give you more problems in terms of driver support from the initial installation without having to go through a whole bunch of hoops to try and find working drivers.
Very informative talk, been going down the rabbit hole watching videos on this sort of stuff.
As for the reason it's not as popular as your standard OS, I think it comes down to:
1. There's a learning curve.
2. Not everyone has time or desire for that learning curve.
Windows and macOS are more or less plug and play. For the people that barely know how to use a computer, it's not even remotely feasible to expect them to learn what Linux is, what it's advantages are, and how to use it. More than likely, that type of person is using a computer for basic tasks - online shopping/social media/online banking/MS office documents... why on earth would you need Linux for that? This still represents the majority of the market.
In a similar vain, it's a lot like consoles vs gaming PCs debate. Sure, the PC does more, and is more powerful. But for a lot of people, plugging a system in and starting to game is about the extent of the amount of time they want to invest, which I think some people forget. The simplicity is the draw in both cases.
Gaming is another massive one, if one or two games you play frequently don't work well or even at all you're probably gonna just keep using Windows, I had that experience with Forza Horizon 5 and Bayonetta in particular
Linux on desktop rocks nowadays. Never been happier with my computer.
With Autodesk and Adobe, we are getting into Enterprise Software and the discussion is mostly about Average Users.
Ether way, this is a vicious circle: Big companies won't build software for X11 because there aren't enough (paying) users.
Users are scared to switch to Linux because the software they're accustomed to is not available for that distribution.
For most users, Ubuntu or Mint would do, but they just don't know it and won't make the leap of faith.
That's not true. Most people require proprietary software from work that isn't available for the Linux platform. MS Office, Adobe as you mentioned, One Note, diverse CAD and management software.
There is hope though: Google Chrome. Its emerging as a platform on its own, soon the OS will be secondary for average users.
@@Merthalophor To be honest MS softwares are increasingly cloud based now with 365, meaning the base layer is the browser.
This is the most concise way to put it, great comment
I appreciate his pre-installed comment. I have been using professional audio hardware for years and very few manufacturers support Linux. What Linux needs is a company like Google to produce a common desktop version much like Android that has a standard graphical and driver API for developers. If I could get a Linux distro that could run Pro Tools, Cubase, etc. and have Lynx, Focusrite, MOTU, etc. driver support, I would jump in a second. I would gladly pay for it and even pay a yearly subscription for updates.
Linux *does* have audio interface support! All the interface brands you mentioned are all class-compatible. If it works natively on a Mac, it will work on Linux flawlessly!
I've been using a Scarlett on my Linux setup since forever and it works completely fine. I can even get low-latency audio working on it with PipeWire and/or JACK.
About drivers, Linux also does have a standard driver API for developers. They are either written as kernel modules or userspace programs. Software support is still kind of sad though, no one really wants to port programs on desktop Linux at all.
If you want commercial DAWs, at least you get Tracktion Waveform and Bitwig on there, I guess.
I'm watching this 11 years later, where of course, everyone uses Linux on the desktop now.
Heh
I mean the numbers went to 4% to like 7,5%. Thanks to Valve, Mint and Conical. Valve is singlehandly leading the charge for casual gamers and Mint and Ubuntu for casual users. Its progress slow but progress and with Microsoft constantly shoting their own foot, its looking good. 2043 will be the year of Linux Desktop.
Um no?
I tried Ubuntu but no compatibility with my wifi card and very difficult to install driver.
yeah the only reason I use Windows is that my wifi adapter driver on linux sucks and the signal is very weak compared to windows
Yeah I spend so much for solving my wifi issues. I had to wipe out whole upgrade and put the old system back. When I checked on the forums , Issues seemed to be from hardware manufacturer, in my case hp failed to tell the open source community about which port they were using for antenna, you see usually there are two anteena but hp only provided one with different decoding so created a whole problem.
agree -- WIFI support on most linux is abysmal
That's because Torvalds is a piece of shit software thief who can't write code to save his ass. He copied shit from 40 years ago then claimed it as his own. No wonder you can't install modern hardware with his copy and paste theft job.
@@Facebook-StevenSchmidlap no, the reason is that for some reason the wifi vendors don't care much about the linux market (because wifi is mostly a desktop thing, which is where Linux failed to spread). Do you think Linus Torvalds writes wifi drivers?
In a professional environment... the software compatibility just isn't there
It depends. If you are a software developer of any kind, Linux is literally heaven on Earth.
@@TickleMeTimbers generally web apps
@@TickleMeTimbers mac os is not very different from linux
It's not about Linux. Linux is just a kernel. It's about free software. And free software is compatible with each other.
@@brainplot That's literally the only time and then you will be making programs for windows
Using OS X - always thought that's an other UNIX derivative - quite popular - pre-installed - and simple (on the front side) - only just not cheap.
I would argue that problem is not that you have to install the OS, I think the real problem is that within 5 minutes of installing it you need to resort to the terminal to do something or get something that couldn't be achieved in GUI.
I honestly think it all has to do with drivers. With good driver support, you don't need to have goofy workarounds or use second rate substitutes for what you need. However, not many companies will be willing to make device drivers for 1%-2% of the market share, so it's truly a chicken and the egg problem. This also ties in with software compatibility, take Adobe Suite as a good example.
+hubomba "not many companies will be willing to make device drivers for 1%-2% of the market share" which in my pov, is really........ REALLY stupid. In their pov probably isn't, cause they may have some dependencies with Microsoft holding them back if you know what I mean.
"However, not many companies will be willing to make device drivers for 1%-2% of the market share, so it's truly a chicken and the egg problem. "
One of the points of having an os and making programs for that os, instead of making a program that boot with computer, is that instead of the developers of that program having to have support to every hardware possible (an impossible thing and even if possible, new hardware will be created in the future when they or their company die).You will have the os and the company that made the hardware will make the driver for the os.
If the hardware creators don't create drivers for some os, they are fucking with the reason to have os at the first place, blaming lack of userbase is stupid because developing drivers for os is their own duty, to make the entire idea of having os instead of bootable program to work.
in the past you are correct about the drivers. Now Linux don't have any problems with drivers unless new hardware within one year. Now many major companies support Linux drivers, Broadcom, intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Realtek.
I once installed a TP-link Wi-Fi adapter for my Linux desktop, the driver came uncompiled, I need to compile it myself, it was a pain to install since I don't much about computers and Linux during that time
Windows drivers are a trainwreck for anything older than 5 years. Windows 11 won't install on my 4 year old laptop
He could just have said: Windows is a product while Linux is an open source project. Completely different animal, just happens to do the same thing. Windows got marketing, cooperate deal, instruction manuals and customer support. Linux has none of that. The end. I love that MC finally embrace Linux with the subsystem thing. Working with webs stuffs is impossible on windows.
Linux is just a kernel, you can do with it whatever you want, within the limits of GPL license. Google made two very successful products based on Linux kernel, namely, Android and Chrome OS.
I agree with your comment until the last sentence. As a developer, I say that working with web stuff is absolutely possible on Windows. I in fact do. Most programming stacks are multi-platform (Java, Python, Go), so are database engines (MySQL, PostgreSQL), and so are IDEs (Intellij IDEA, Eclipse, VS Code) and VCSs (Git, SVN). You've even got a native OpenSSH client. I've never had to resort to WSL for development purposes.
@@xXxNoisemaker Those are very basic and even basic stuffs are faster in Linux to set up. Some modules just don't exist on Windows, it's not possible to test it.
@@lc9245 Give examples.
@@xXxNoisemaker Unicorn for example wasn't made for Windows. There were a bunch of gems that didn't play nice with Windows, you can check that yourself. It's not impossible to overcome, you can always VM it, but it is a pain when something didn't run right just because it's Windows. Linux dominate backend, it's more comfortable having the subsystem. I spend more time troubleshooting modules that don't play well with Windows than developing sometimes.
My Major reason is Adobe Products. I have used so many distros on my machine but i always had to switch between windows and linux for my average work. And some of it is related to newer hardware graphics driver.
well Virtual Machines made the situation easier
Ask Adobe to port their products, ask the manufacturers to write drivers. The platform is already there, it's the developers who simply need to *actually port their software*
I think that beyond that "commercial reason" there're few quite heavy technical reasons either:
1. Lack of backwards compatibility. For example you can not expect to install all software that worked on Ubuntu 18.04 , on Ubuntu 20.04 (lts!). You get missing dependencies, missing ppa's etc...
And think that Ubuntu is one of the most famous and used destros out there, with a commercial company behind it.
And I am talking about LTS only!!
If things are bad there, guess how bad they are on less famous distros.
2. UI (Gnome/Kde) issues. The hardware here doesn't matter(tried on various laptops), those libraries are buggy and resource heave. period. And think that I am just writing code most of the time so my needs are very modest. If I were a graphical designer, I would be cursing after 5 sec.
So bottom line, you can not be successful on desktop without a solid working UI.
1.- There are distro-agnostic packaging formats that take care of the backwards compatibility (Mainly Snaps and Flatpak).
2.- If Gnome or KDE are giving you so e troubles, then don't use them, use other desktop environments or window managers, that's why they exist
I bought 2 asus notebook with native (out of the box) ubuntu in Colombia. That was just my best computers ever.
Yes, Linux not coming preinstalled is part of the problem, but IMHO a much bigger problem is the lack of standards on the Desktop. As a programmer I can't for example write a program that just "prints" something or opens "the print dialog" on linux, because different distros have different libraries and NO COMMON API. Same thing for managing daemons, same thing for registering MIME types, installing and uninstalling software or registering a program to run at startup (that's not even consistent between different releases of the same distro).
There also isn't a "default" desktop environment (OR AT LEAST A COMMON API) so you could write GUI programs without a framework that's possibly not preinstalled in the distro my client uses. The distros are just too different.
As crappy as windows handles these things, at least in handles them consistently enough that programmers can rely on it. If you had that kind of consistency, you could much more easily get your GUI programs running on your clients computer - that would make Linux much more attractive for companies - and when people got used to Linux at work, they might be more open to having it on their home machine
So pretty please, Linus, Linux Foundation, talk to the developers of the respective libraries and decide on standards for the APIs
10 years later and still not an inch closer to Linux desktop being common. Rather inching farther away.
Games, Photoshop, Adobe CS, drivers. It's not pre-installed because software and hardware support is still lacking.
I think the main issue is professional tools like Adobe collection and Camtasia, Snagit, ...
I know there are alternatives but they aren't as good as the ones on windows and mac os
The problem with this is not on the Os itself, but in the developers who simply don't port their stuff to it. It's a vicious circle since:
1) The developers don't port their stuff to the target Os
2) Since they don't port their stuff, people don't switch because the software isn't available.
3) The market share doesn't grow because people don't switch, so it makes it look like almost nobody uses the Os
4) Since it looks like nobody uses the Os, the developers think it's pointless to port their software and offer support.
And then the chain repeats itself. The preinstalled thing also affects this situation, but when it comes to software availability, the fault is of the developers that don't support GNU/Linux, not of GNU/Linux itself. And as an Arch Linux user (btw) it pains me to say it, but that's what the truth is rn. This is why it's much better to do the research first to know if you actually can make the switch, instead of blindly doing the switch and then blame the operating system because the software developers don't support it.
If someone can come up with a GUI for dummies on Linux that is not geared towards tech herds, just like on Ms Windows and Apple that might be a start. A new hardware company which exclusively sells Linux machines with the GUI for dummies would slowly lure users towards Linux. Just my 2cents
yeah, especially when it comes to drivers.
some distros works just fine and some don't
It's great to see that Crostini is becoming a thing now. Chromebooks actually have the potential to be fully featured laptops that run Linux.
Only a matter of time before Chromebook moves away from Linux to Fuchsia. (And then Google will cancel it.)
Growing up I was forced to play Tux Racer 😢 SteamOS is a game changer
I have 40 years in computing. The reasons are its totally alien, its seen as a hackers OS, there are too many versions, a hostile user base but most of all there is no software. Really. What runs on it aside from office software?
Pretty much everything outside a few proprietary software.
@@ethan-fel And the market share of that few is enormous.
Can't really comment on the hackers OS part that's what I use it for
Also a lot of software does run on linux, for example steam, most applications I've written, a bunch of windows applications under wine
Totaly alien? You could move Ubuntu taskbar to the bottom and tell your grandma it's a Windows update and she'd just use it as normal.
The answer is simple: there are hundreds of different distros, and no average user is going to research to find what distro suits their needs. Doesn't matter how easy the install is
Ubuntu, research done.
@@ethan-fel invalid answer. Try again.
@@seansopata5121 are you searching this on Bing to find this invalid ? :)
@@ethan-fel I manage several thousand Linux servers spread around the globe. I don't need to research it, buttercup. Your answer is invalid because it doesn't actually provide information.
@@seansopata5121 "buttercup". K, learn to be respectful and polite, it look like you spend too much time with your "several thousands of Linux server".
With the current trend in the software industry where everything is going onto the web (Office Online, web versions of Photoshop, etc), maybe the compatibility issue will be over. With a decent browser on your machine, you can do pretty much nowadays. In this new environment, Linux can play is 'free' card and gain market!
Not happening in the near future, browser based applications will never be as fast as native applications
@@visheshl I can see cloud computing will taking over in a few over.
rewatching this video makes me feel like ubuntu 13.04 was just released yesterday 🤣🤣🤣
With everything being browser-based nowadays there is really no software concerns anymore for most people, device drivers are also in a much better place. The issue is Microsoft also knows this and has turned Windows into a basically free Product, supported by ads and spyware.
KDE and Gnome have come a long way since this video was released
Windows first came on the market and linux came with an operating system incompatible with millions of software and drivers developed for windows.
@TechaxWorld A lot of games and software without alternatives on par with the original product is still completely incompatible. Not to mention typing code will never be preferred to clicking around in a GUI for the average user. Even the "quickness of installing software" is something Microsoft is now competing with Linux in with their "Microsoft Store". Linux for personal use will never work.
@TechaxWorld I know what you mean, I felt very comfortable while I was using Linux for the short time I was, but again, even as a tech-savvy person there was a pretty steep learning curve, it didn't bother me much, but I can't imagine the average Joe ever "getting used" to that when alternatives like Windows exist. It's great that you got your games to run - I think it was a about a year ago I was trying Linux out and my games, even after extensive tweaking and messing around, unfortunately didn't (and still to this day don't), or should I say they did, but extremely poorly to the point of unplayability. On top of that I was missing the offline MS Office package a lot, and therefore decided that, while I'm rooting for the project, Linux simply isn't good enough for me to make the switch yet.
The reason I'm pretty passionate about this topic is because I'd like to switch to Linux, but feel like its lack of "Average Joe-friendliness" makes it so it'll never get to a point where I'll be satisfied with it. I hope I'm wrong.
@TechaxWorld So, I still have Windows on my machine for games, but you saying that they can work on Linux is a game changer. What distro is best for gaming? I'm using Ubuntu as I ease myself into Linux but I'm planning on switching to another distro soon. If games work on Linux I may as well remove windows completely.
@TechaxWorld I could run wine just fine. But well, I graduated from compsci department. I am certain that even if a layman read wine documentation from top to bottom, they'll still struggle.
Poison Cloud, check your facts before claiming wrong. DOS came first on the market. Linux was already there when Windows 3.11 wasn't even a thing. It was just a "geek thing".
And you know why Linux isn't pre-installed on desktops? Because everything you want to do, you have to do through terminal. No matter how simple, the solution is always to type terminal commands, and edit settings files.
And there's isn't a single distro where this is improved. I don't even know what the different distros do, other than ship with different UI colors and wallpapers. If they're not working to add more functions to the UI, then what are they even doing?
Another big issue is quality. Linux Server has a fantastic and high quality server experience. I really don't think I've ever had a bad experience with Linux Server. However switching to Linux Desktop and the quality drops to almost nothing. The reason behind that is the "bar". Yes, Linux Desktop has Wine to run Windows programs, it has a ton of video editors, cd/dvd software/ screen recording, you name it. It all sounds so fantastic on the box and when spoken by mouth. But Wine is notoriously buggy and glitchy, the video editors are often really crappy and feel like they were from the 90's, most of the programs (Even the window manager) tend to crash regularly and for no reason. You can minimize the crashing by leveraging very little features such as not using the Desktop's social platform integration or not using big features or feature heavy stuff. But most stuff is below par, horribly designed, poorly maintained, crashes often. Most of the GUI have no thought to any UI or UX (They come as an after thought because the developer wants to program, not design GUI). When I use Linux Desktop I feel like I'm walking on thin glass where anything could break when I do anything without warning.
Surely this is a big issue in the Linux community, something that needs addressing and fixing. Unfortunately not which leads to another big problem. Most developers choose Linux, not for quality and a great UI/UX) but because it's open source. The only bar on releasing software to Linux that Linux Users are proud about is simply that it's open source. It doesn't even have to run without crashing, as long as it's open source, it's ok, and it's all good. This leads to a terrible experience with Desktop Linux. I love open source but I also want to enjoy using it, I want standards, I want quality, I don't ever want it to crash. I want the UI to feel like it's from 2020, not 1994. I want high standards because I want an amazing and well developed open source program. But what I get is "Well It's open source, that should be enough, it's better that money hungry companies that only care about draining everyone's money."
You hit the nail on the head :)
I'll give some counter-arguments.
- 'The GUI of most programs has no thought to any UI or UX - it's an afterthought because the devs are programmers.' Well, yes and no.
Yes, _some_ programs looks dated. Because the only people who use Linux are people who go out of their way to install a separate operating system onto their computer, a lot of them are programmers, meaning they're more used to command-line programs.
But also no. It's a GUI. It does what it needs to do. Even the ones that do admittedly look dated (like VLC) are functionally identical to 'modern-looking' software. Do you really care so much about the buttons being round instead of flat? Remember, 'dated' just means 'looks different to modern software'. Not to mention there are many open-source programs with quite a nice GUI (like Gimp. I'd also say LibreOffice looks nice too, but apparently it doesn't? Comparing Word and LibreOffice Writer now, I genuinely cannot see a difference. Writer uses the GNOME toolbar but that's the only difference I can see).
Not to mention - if you really care so much about using a nice-looking GUI, then _just use a program that has one._ Outside games, almost all big applications have binaries for Linux, Mac and Windows, simply because it makes financial sense to do so. Although most Linux users prefer using open-source software, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from using proprietary software but social stigma.
- 'The video editors are often really crappy.' That's a _really_ specific type of program. But again, if you don't want to use open-source video editors, don't. There's nothing stopping you.
- 'Most of the programs tend fo crash regularly and for no reason.' Ok, now this is an area where I can give my own experience. In my experience, virtually nothing has crashed ever, despite using a rolling-release distro (with 'unstable' binaries). I'm racking my brains to think of an example but the only thing I can think of is chromium becoming unresponsive once so I had to kill it. All other times my system has become unresponsive was because I completely ran out of RAM and swap, which would crash your system on any OS.
- 'Most stuff is below par, horribly designed, poorly maintained, crashes often.' It's like you're talking about a separate OS. What kind of programs are you using? In general, if there's an open-source and proprietary version of the same type of software, the open-source version is usually better. This is simply because a lot more people can see the source code and make suggestions. These people could be anyone from a full-on maintainer to just someone who noticed a bug or inefficiency and decided to contribute.
You're also acting like the proprietary software isn't crappy - Microsoft and Adobe products, for example, are usually awful, crappy, bloated products that should have collapsed under their own weight a long time ago.
Admittedly, I don't use many GUI programs, but the open-source ones I've used (ungoogled Chromium, Gimp, LibreOffice) have always seemed much more responsive and _much_ less buggy than proprietary ones (Teams [web app], all the Office products [school computers], any in-built Windows application ever [school computers again]). That's not even including the command-line programs, which have always have worked flawlessly and lightning-fast.
- 'The only bar on releasing software to Linux that Linux Users are proud about is simply that it's open source.' Sure, that's the *main* thing that we're proud about. But if software has any bugs or apparent lack of functionality, issues will be created on that topic and someone will fix it. The more major the bug, the more people try to fix it and for longer. Software crashing would count as a _major_ bug if it's reproducible (i.e. it hasn't happened to a single user only once) and happens in a somewhat realistic scenario (i.e. it's not a text editor crashing if it tries to open a text file a terabyte in size). That's also to say nothing of people who will comb through the source code for the express purpose of making it more efficient or fixing yet-undiscovered bugs (yes, those people do exist, which is why net upgrade sizes are sometimes negative), or the fact that open-source software usually has no telemetry.
- 'It's the most fragile and lowest quality hacked up thing I've ever used.' Man, what have you been _doing_ to your desktop? I don't know what distros you've been using so I can't comment on that. But terrible-quality desktops are exceptions, not the norm. If you want stability, use Debian or Arch. I use Arch and I just don't really need to do anything to my system. After installing and setting it up, issues very rarely appear (and the ones that do I can fix quickly. Apart from _one_ which is my system failing to mount /boot upon upgrading the kernel. Should fix that, but there is absolutely no hurry, seeing as I can probably use my current kernel version for years). Oh, and desktops like Manjaro aren't actually good because they _are_ actually buggy and poorly-designed.
But I will admit. Because so few people use Linux compared to the general market, there is a genuine lack of open-source software and dedicated maintainers of existing software. It would be fantastic if companies like Microsoft made all their products open-source, but we all know that will never happen.
Damn, bro rolled out an essay
It's all in user preferences and market viability, from a techie's perspective it's a great desktop variant for any operating system . After 10 years of working with Linux and long time after I installed Windows 10 side by side I just play around with both and find it very interesting that how with open source in the modern computing has increased an operator's role to almost a system administrator.
I have been using Opensuse, Minx and Unbuntu for many years as well as Windows 10. Linux is easily the most adapt to performance and stability.
Because there are KDE and Gnome, so instead of focus on one window manager and make it perfect with great API, nobody knows which one will be the winner tomorrow.
QT apps run on Gnome and GTK apps run on KDE so that's not a problem
Well this video was years ago, and linux was struggling with its everything back in the day. Everything that could be said to Linux was that, it is secure as a kernel and it manages resources better than its counterparts. Both Windows and MacOs.
To this day, all of them evolved. Windows 10 is a solid operating system but its still not on the Linux level of management. I get why is like that. Microsoft knows the solution but Windows should be backwards compatible with other softwares as well, and that's what Microsoft is really good at. Supporting old software for their operating system. This is not something common on the linux community since nearly most of the programs are open source and updated version will be free and all but this is something that Windows must do.
For the answer of that question, Linus is kind of right. However, linux does not need pre-installed devices, someone who is willing to use linux distrubitions are mostly doing it for the sake of the linux. Just using linux is the reason to that loads of distrubitons. And that is the reason why linux hasn't taken off even today. Lots of distrubitons means lots of confision for the average consumer. Maybe some of us are not average on that topic, but you get the idea. Why Android has taken off at the mobile industry? Because it is known as Android, not linux. It IS running a linux kernel, its is actually a solid piece of linux, but is not know as one. Even the example that Linus gives here is on this topic, Linux comes to consumer computers as the form of Chromebook, or to be more specific, Chrome OS. Open source is good, all distrubitions are linux are there for a reason and I am aware of that. Linux as a kernel is more than just a kernel anymore. Most of the drivers and other functionalities are supported from the kernel level, which means that most of the hardware on the planet earth should be able to run linux now. But the reason it is faling is the lack of doinance amongs distrubitions.
And yes you are right on the both topics, creating one more dominant distrubition will create the 15th standart to the market, where there are already 14 standarts are ready and waiting. In other words, would bring more players in the field thus changing nothing. And forcing some distrubition on is just wrong to the idea of the Linux. Developing for one operating system, especially one distrubition on mind will kill the community and it is not happening as you can see. Linux is kinda doomed on that aspect. Average consumer doesn't care about freedom and open-source, they don't even care what those mean. They just want to get work done and this is something that is kind of hard with Linux.
I hope you get my point. It is something that looks silly, but it is already true. Look at Apple products and customers of Apple. Most of them buy products because of the "ecosystem", and that ecosystem is basically a simple one interaction center of all of the tech they got. Macbooks, iMacs, iPhone and iPad's are all use the same kind of UI. Windows devices are just windows devices, buying another windows device would not change the place of a setting or some specific funciton that you are looking for. But that is some mess in the various distros between Linux. That is the problem linux have, which they can't fix without changing the actual name, "Linux".
It’s not really a problem, having so many distributions, particularly because this allows for someone to get their PhD in CS by writing their own version of Linux.
Such things of “too many options” is just a psychological problem among humans known as analysis paralysis and the paradox of choice (“everything is greener on the other side”).
The actual way to solve this “problem”, is not by changing Linux, it is instead to start genetically modifying humans to not have analysis paralysis and the paradox of choice.
It's kinda sad how he keeps patting google on the back for their Android even though Android is far from pure Linux and google is figuring out a way on how to replace it with their Fuchsia project.
I'm fairly sure nothing will come of Fuchsia- There's literally no features smartphones need that aren't already available on Android or at least on Linux. We haven't had a single worthwhile innovation on a smartphone in nearly 5 years now.
@@AcheronLupus1 uhmm...
@@ArmiaKhairy oh my god 😂😂
3 years later, Google is still figuring out how to replace it with Fuchsia or whatevver the fuck that might be
The Q&A was before Google even started that project
And nearly 10 years later, we have the Steam Deck. Will be interesting to see what happens.
@Jacob i's a desktop, it's a laptop, it's the console under my TV, it's a handheld. It's whatever I want it to be and can use it any way I want - just like a desktop. Can't say the same about consoles.
@@blacksmithie You think people wouldn't use a console as a desktop if they had the chance? A console is an incredible price/performance deal! I'd buy a console if it wasn't a locked system. Look at the market! Every manufacturer creating half-tablet half-laptop PCs, ultrabooks, all-in-one PCs... Like you said, the lines are getting blurry, but that's because there's a demand for a PC in every form factor. Your PS3 running Linux is a bad example, because you gotta root the console to make it half-work (and iirc the guy who made it work got sued and jailed). It's neither easy nor worth the effort.
As good as ARM might be, a chromebook is the only thing on which ChromeOS comes pre-installed and while the sales were good, the vast majority was enterprise sales. That makes no difference, we already have Linux running on servers everywhere, that takes care of the enterprise side. Steam Deck will put a linux in the hands of millions - not business-to-business millions, real, dumb, end-user millions! That will create a demand for stuff running natively on that thing for the performance benefit and if it runs on the Deck, it will run on anything running Linux. It single handedly solves the chicken-egg scenario of why people aren't using Linux/why there's no software for Linux. Nobody likes being OS-dependent, but ironically Valve was the first to realize how much that means.
@@blacksmithie Once again I don't understand how you compare a console to a smartphone. A console being a locked PC is a lot better comparison. Ultimately they're both just boxes sitting next to your display except one of them allows you to do whatever you want.
As far as mobile/handlheld gaming goes, I doubt many people will use the Deck to actually play games on the go. More like move from one place to the next, sit down in comfort and then use it, which would petty much make the equivalent of a laptop anyways. The laptop has the advantage of having a keyboard and a bigger screen. The Deck has the advantage of being way cheaper than equivalent laptop hardware. While the primary purpose is a gaming, the marketing does not at all try to sell it off as just your Steam library on the go. On the contrary, the emphasis is on it being a handheld PC.
@@blacksmithie Yeah they use the Switch undocked - while lying in bed or something. They still don't play "on-the-go".
What the Deck will be used for depends entirely on how easy SteamOS makes. Running Linux on a PS3 - especially after the update which requires you to jailbreak it - is hard. But if e.g. the Deck would automatically switch from Big Picture Mode to the desktop environment as soon as you dock it or connect a display or kb/m? It's all about accessibility.
In my opinion it is not only the preinstalls, but also the microsoft office software itself. Big Companies have administrators to install operating systems for their users. But for a lot of simple business tasks the people stick to excel, word or powerpoint and the user experience of open source alternatives is not great. This might apply for other commercial software.
I have used debian on my desktop and now currently having fun with arch. I don't know what can be better for home pcs.
In Brazil Dell sells computers for consumers with Ubuntu pre-installed. Maybe half the systems in their website is Linux because it makes it cheaper for the consumer.
Linux was a fun project for me, but I currently can't see it replacing Windows for me. Windows 10 is pretty horrible, but it is the ease of use and speed I like. Reinstalling an OS is no big deal I think. It is very streamlined nowadays, but getting additional features to work is a nightmare on Linux, if you are just an average (+a bit tech savy) user like me. It took me 4 hours to get the AMD Linux drivers to install on MX Linux. 2 hours to get Wine to install... Hell, I couldn't get sound through HDMI after 5 hours of trying... For every little detail you have to check "insert your search engine of choice" and how to deal with the issue. Only to find that it works on Ubuntu, but not other Distros. So you have to start again. 25 years ago Windows 95 was already much easier to use, though of course more limited. I would rather use less time on troubleshooting and more time on focusing on my hobbies and work, so Windows it is. It is sort of a middle ground between MacOS (which I despise) and Linux right now and fits me perfectly.
Linux will be really popular when games and all other programs will run natively on it.
posted from my linux desktop 2024
Summary: Linus says it's because Linux doesn't come pre-installed on desktops. That prevented it from gaining traction with casual users. He contrasts it with mobile, where Linux is huge because it's part of Android.
It's not really a part of android, its basically the major base of the entire Android OS
My experience with Linux reckons that it'll never see mainstream success on a desktop because of a handful of core factors. There's too much choice, it's not user-friendly, it's not intuitive, and many distros feel like beta software with janky and unfinished components. Don't get me wrong, I like and use Linux for certain tasks. But it feels like a hobbyist OS and the exact inherent nature of Linux with its hundreds of available distros ironically makes a mockery out of it. I mean if some random guy can just install a bunch of his favorite programs and release it as a whole new OS then that doesn't sound very professional by any means.
It feels like a hobbyist OS because it is a hobbyist OS.
Microsoft has a divisions that test end user usability. They bring in IT Pros to test Server UI. They pay gamers for testing games. They get real desktop users to test office apps. Linux desktop environment is designed for the developers that built the software because Linux is tested by developers and end users. The Linux developer community acts as if it despises the end user. A bug report in Linux is replied with "fix it yourself". Microsoft support would capture bugs, forward to dev, and patches written.
Which Distro you used?...I use manjaro and the devs and the community is very good.... They always there to help
@@arghyaS Never heard of it. But there are hundreds of dead distributions as well. And kernel bugs are not resolved in distributions (kernel is Torvalds people). Centos, RedHat, Knoppix, uC Linux (microcontrollers), and Suse as well as OS/X and Windows. Had a working relastionship with Canonical. Personally I prefer Slackware, came from the first linux distribution, Soft Landing Systems. First "make" was Linux kernel 0.91. My computer "toys" all run NetBSD or FreeBSD because Linux has become bloatware like Windows. Pity Linux hasn't been able get Hurd working.
@@stephenjacks8196 you worked in cannonical?...can you tell me more about tour experience there?
@@arghyaS No. I with Canonical through Canonical Sales Engineer. The company had a "Ubuntu for Devices" product for phones (huge market). It was a secondary project for me. This was just before Microsoft made Windows Phone free to phone manufacturers.
Most Linux installs break phone security so no more calls. The Ubuntu Phone could install over Android without breaking phone security. I had installed the earlier version on a throw away Kindle.
After all this time there is still no interest in Linux Phone (actually Android is a Linux kernel with a Dalvik (Java Micro Edition clone) display interface instead of a Window Manager.
Really ? Have you report it into linux kernel mailing list ?
Using Windows, Mac, and Linux. Each has its own benefits. But for the most part, I'm using Windows, due to the main software I'm working with is available for this OS only.
Let's do the Five Why's method: (1) Why is Linux not dominant on the desktop? Because OEMs don't preinstall it. (2) Why don't OEMs preinstall it? Leave answers below.
Android is a Linux and shows what can be done with a Linux if they allow you (the community) to do it.
Android only took off because of Google, not the Linux community
One simple answer: Microsoft Office and Games. In the past was device drivers too. But everything's gonna change. Soon. Take Steam/Proton for example.
It's games. That's the only reason. Sure, after MS won and dominated the market they found other ways to kinda lock you in their system, MS Office is one of them. But games was the main reason. Had quality games been built for Linux instead of Windows, MS would have no chance, no matter how many offices they make. Business people are usually the last ones to adopt anything, they just go with the flow, the safe route, what is already popular. Steam and Proton is awesome, but it's too late now though, isn't it?
I only use desktops. When I buy a new one I need to be confident I can buy software and hardware for it that will just work. So it has to be Windows.
I like Linux, but I totally understand you. I admit that boot into Windows when doing 3D cad etc. Linux just isn't good for all usage, though there's really nice opensource set of programs these days available that can cover most basic and even heavy usage.
The success of Google and Microsoft is rooted in the fact that Hardware arrives with their Operating Systems & software already in it.
If you come across this, please send your prayers and positive thoughts. I've been struggling with health issues.
The moment When the look and feel of Windows have changed was the opportunity to win a bit of the market.
Why do constructors have not preinstalled linux ( free) is the key...
I think drivers used to be an issue, and for me personally, at least when I played them, it was games. In my experience, each OS is terrible in their own special way.
Drivers are still an issue. I tried installing Linux in a newly bought HP laptop of mine and the drivers that allowed Wi-Fi connection just weren't working, apparently because there was no official driver for that specific piece of hardware. It took me two days (and a complete reinstall of the OS) to actually get some driver from Github to work without colliding with the preinstalled, useless one. I'm not extremely tech savvy myself but if I'm supposed to in order to even connect to the Internet then, well, yeah, Linux ain't taking off on desktop any time soon.
The thing also runs out of battery fairly quickly, about twice as fast as when my mother uses Windows on it (neither of us using much processing power, she'd use MS Office Word and Chrome, I'd use Firefox and a text editor). I read it's a common phenomenon and was recommended to install TLP, which I did although I couldn't notice much of a difference.
@@agustinl2302 weird that’s happened to you, you should check the power management settings and configure it up properly
my asus s14 has almost double the battery life it used to have on Windows just because of the less bloat and lower idle ram and cpu usage
"They're all terrible" is a terrible rationalization. There was a certain fox who took that attitude and we're still talking about it a couple of thousand years later.
As a Windows user who has tried Linux a few times (unsuccessfully), my main obstacle is that everything is done through the console, I'm used to navigate through the files in a graphic environment without having to write lines of code for everything I want to do.
Also games, in Windows you google the game, you download it, click install, and done, the game is ready. I tried with the same game in Linux (Planet Base was the game) using Wine and the colors were really bad, everything was red
Once you get used to the commands, you will find point and clicking on Windows painfully inefficient
Btw, if you are using Linux to play windows games... dude what the hell are you doing?
You do not need the console for most things, it is just more efficient and easier to support.
Enter Line: "some-command -with -some -options | some -more -stuff " is just simpler as saying: "press button A, then B, then go to tab C, search D and change it to E". You can copy paste the command line and it works in all language settings, in the GUI you often have to translate it to your language.
And it is very easy to script things or automate things, just write all the commands in a textfile, line by line, and execute it. This is much harder with a GUI.
@@quelorepario Yes, indeed but that's also the prolem. people are keen to visual instruction/guidelines which terminal/cmd lacks. and not everyone is tech-savvy enough to remember every types of command and all of its parameters. i'm myself a really cmd type person, sometimes accessing app or trying to find some info is much easier using command than just use mouse and search for the application using UI. but it's because i love tech and already spent much times around computer tinkering and do stuff around it that i ended up prefer the terminal compared to UI. and again, not everyone is tech-savvy and would love to spend times learning something that is harder to remember
@@leitto-corleone just
man package | grep option
It's very in character for Linus to say "I started this operating system for desktops" despite the fact that he started only kernel, and it was made into OS mostly by other people.
Many years later now, and DELL has been selling preinstalled Ubuntu for years, did not really make a difference.
This should be changing as I have installed Linux on several of our machines due to Windows not having sufficient support for their latest operating system. I am my friend's geek girlfriend. If they have issues with windows I highly recommend Ubuntu and Linux Mint. The windows support desk told me that two of my computers were trashed.. Funny how they work perfectly with Linux.
i wanted to install ubuntu on my dad's laptop but he thought that if it's free then it's probably shit. can't really blame him - we used to live in soviet union. that might also be a reason why people don't like linux - if it's free there must be a catch.
I'm a software developer. So I do use Linux on a daily basis. I like it, it helps me be more productive (compared to Windows at least). But for people who do not live in the command line: what is the business case for switching to Linux? Cause as I see it, there basically is none.
Businesses don't use Windows because it's great. They use it because they have their LDAP and they can control the machines of their employees. People, generally, know how to use Windows. As I see it, learning how to use a completely different OS just to do the same things is nonsensical.
You should check *Windows Terminal* , *Powershell Core* , *Git bash* , *Docker* and of course *WSL2* . Windows is a breeze to develop applications and write software even for other platforms including Linux systems.
@@christoslytras7912 I know all these tools. I don't quite get your point.
@@_azer0s you say that Windows is less productive for software development compared to Linux and I say the opposite, that's my point, that software developing on Windows nowadays can be more productive, it's just that *you* are familiar working with Linux. I include some basic Windows dev tools because you seem you don't know about them. Of course I can understand that *you* , as a developer, are feeling more productive working on Linux, but that's not a rule, people are productive on systems they feel comfortable working with and that may be Windows, Linux and/or MacOS.
Also FYI (because you say it like it's only a thing of Windows), LDAP server can be installed and configured to Linux servers like CentOS (www.itzgeek.com/how-tos/linux/centos-how-tos/step-step-openldap-server-configuration-centos-7-rhel-7.html) and Ubuntu clients (computingforgeeks.com/how-to-configure-ubuntu-18-04-ubuntu-16-04-lts-as-ldap-client/).
@@christoslytras7912 No. I said that Windows is less productive for *me* . I know plenty of people who are just as productive on Windows (except for when they do need Linux in form of WSL or a VM 😉).
I know that there is OpenLDAP. But tell that to a bank or other massive corporation that has been with Windows Server for literally decades.
All I am saying was: while I *love* Linux, there is little to no business value in switching to Linux. I think you misunderstood me there, m8.
@@_azer0s Yes, I now understand what you mean and I agree with you. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Windows fanboy even though I'm using Windows for more than 20 years for developing, I do use everything from Linux servers, Linux desktops, MacOS, whatever I need to get the job done. I'm saying that Windows can be a very productive developing environment. As for Linux on Windows and WSL, there is *WSL2* that is still in development and it will be released on the April Windows 10 update and that has a *real Linux kernel released by Microsoft!* that sits on top of Windows kernel, thus WSL2 is superfast compared to WSL1 and has no restrictions and it works pretty good with Windows. I have tested it out and I am thrilled by its performance! (github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel)
I tried to install 3 versions of linux and none of them worked on my computer. I tried to understand why for couple of days, but when people talk about linux it's like totaly different, high-tech language i dont understand no matter hard i google it
Games, office, Adobe etc. Its all about software compatability. Android is so popular because almost every app made is compatible with Android, which is why its preinstalled..
Blame the companies then, they are the ones who need to port their software (while keeping the quality) and offer the support, especially if it's propietary software, if it were at least open source someone could still fork it and create and overall good Linux port. Don't blame the OS because Linux itself has no jurisdiction in that field
As someone who is quite fond of Linux, it's kinda also important not to try to gloss over that it's an OS that still depends very heavily on the terminal. That is going to turn off most desktop users, like it or not. Technophiles will be willing to learn command line, sure. But most people who use computers are not enthusiasts. Until a Linux distro exists where literally everything from top to bottom can be set up and maintained as easily as it can in Windows, and I mean easily as it pertains to the average user, not the most technically adept, you just aren't going to see it taking the desktop market away from Microsoft.
Update: linux now ships on my commercial desktop systems. Yay!
Poggggg
8 years later: Nothing happened.
Elementary is cool I mean, it's attractive and simple
it is but I find that I installed peppermint instead and it did a fantastic job at being lightweight and efficient at work you just install libreoffice and then you're good
Pre-installed is the outcome of a product that works for the average consumer. It is not the way you get there. It’s like saying your restaurant is failing because it has no customers. Imagine if Dell magically decided to start pre-installing only Ubuntu on their machines tomorrow. Think about drivers, user-friendliness, and application support. How do you think that would really go? The restaurant is failing because the food sucks, the menu is huge, and you have to cook the meal yourself, bus the table, and do the dishes.
That's why I like Linux. It's just vanilla OS with no commercial purposes. It doesn't force you to update, doesn't follow what you searched in internet and bring your history all local computers. A week ago I searched a bit about MacBook Then MacBook ads showing off in every phone and laptop connected wifi. It's disturbing.
Desktop Linux in 2019 is becoming amazing. Way better then Mac OS X and Windows. You just need to put some time into it.
Time, which while all have the same amount, is often allocated to other endeavors. It circles back to the argument of: How is it better, and what benefits will I easily reap from putting time into doing this change? Will it make my entire life easier?
if I had PC with linux then first thing I would do is format disk and install Windows. All about preinstalling Linux.
People do that all the time where I live. Import laptops preloaded with linux or freedos, wipe them, install a pirated copy of Windows and sell them.
No, preinstalls won't popularize Linux as a Desktop anytime soon. I installed Ubuntu on my Windows laptop, and the user experience is hideous.
The number of times I had to fiddle with something on the command line is unacceptable as a consumer product made for the general public.
After a year, I bought bluetooth earbuds and realized they don't work out of the box. I decided to switch back to Windows right there.
Why are you scared of the terminal? All commands you as an end user would want to run will be well documented and available for you to copy-paste from an article or forums post. Some hardware isn't compatible out of the box, yes, but that isn't "Linux"'s fault. The creators of that product specifically choose to develop it for Windows or IOS or whatever it may be. Ubuntu can't magically make all the drivers some company didn't want to make
@@Anonymous4045 I think the general rule is that you have to make desktop OS accessible to the casual users in order for them to mass adopt it. Linux is simply not casual user friendly enough.
I my opinion Adobe is to be blamed for now. Many people install Windows operating system themselves. It's IMHO the software companies that don't make softwares for these. It's primarily the reason why Google managed to kill Windows Phone as a main stream operating system by not making Google apps for it even though it did come pre-installed on mobile devices and had a great potential.
Finally someone who actually gets it. You deserve my like
Very thoughtful answer! I'm a #freesoftware guy and I understand Linus' stand. All things aside, if you read the email Linus sent in his initial release of Linux which worked with limited hardware, he didn't aspire it to become something "professional" like GNU, rather like Minix.
It was the people who packaged everything together and still called it Linux.
FSF saw it as a discrediting move and thought Linus trying to steal their hard work. This began the ever long tussle between Free Software and #opensource.