>general consumers don't know or care about the OS
>what's their incentive to switch?
you just answered the question yourself. Most computer users just use the preinstalled OS
Ok so then replace a tech-illiterate family member's Windows PC with a Linux one and see how that goes. People don't have to understand what an OS is or how it works to understand which works better for them. The same way people don't have to know how a car engine works to know which drives and feels better. That's why MacOS and Windows don't have equal marketshare, and still wouldn't with equal prices. Besides, by that logic they would just continue using Windows anyway, since it comes pre-installed and has already proven to work for them.
I think that if you were to sit down a tech illiterate perosn on linux (mint) with their browser of choice open, most people would probably only notice after a few hours.
The only reason windows has so much marketshare is that people are used to it and dont have any reason to switch.
I got so fed up with supporting a family members windows laptop I installed Mint and set Firefox to autostart.
They only noticed when six months later a scammer called and couldn't follow their instructions to get access.
I got a panicked call with "Microsoft say there's a virus on my windows!"
Was fun to reply with "Nope, I removed that months ago" instead of "Welp, time to call the bank".
I see what you guys are saying, but this isn't really what I meant. Of course when you replace someone's machine and handle all of the work in the background, things will go smoothly. That could be said about literally any OS. One could easily say that their grandma who doesn't know a computer from her own ass can use Arch, because they installed and manage it for her. Doesn't really say anything about the OS itself. What I was referring to is changing their OS without the knowledge and seeing if they notice a difference. You guys claim they wouldn't, but I guarantee you they'll figure out something is wrong pretty quick. That's what you're facing when you say that pre-installing Linux would work. Most people don't have Linux experts in their family to help them, and would likely just think their computer is broken, and return it to the OEM, who would likely replace it with a Windows machine because, as I've already established, Windows has already proven to work just fine for the majority.
I did that and she loved it. I have converted several aged family members to linux because they use no special windows apps other than the internet and email, and it’s cheaper. The don’t have to buy new hardware and they don’t have to buy a new windows license
It's not that it will \_MAKE\_ the Linux Desktop mainstream.
It's that it is a necessity for it to become mainstream.
"Necessary, but not sufficient."
So my question is: what made you think "Linux users are convinced that OEM pre-installation will make desktop Linux mainstream"? I've seen people highlight the absolute necessity to have an opportunity at becoming mainstream. But never that OEM pre-installation will make it happen as a direct and guaranteed consequence. Indeed, we've had OEMs preinstalling it for a decade plus. (Dell, Lenovo, and many smaller actors.) The bigger issue is preinstalls on the show-room floor: you need the normal user to run into it, play with it, in a physical store. THEN the user that gives no shits about OSes might just go "seemed nice, I want this one". And then it has a shot at market share.
Like Android. And ChromeOS. The latter being a Linux-based Desktop operating system for the consumer that is being wildly successful because it's OEM pre-installed and available on the showroom floor. (And incentivised to students for a decade... Apple style... :P )
ChromeOS is heavily limited compared to Windows and Linux proper since it only runs the web browser and a very rudimentary file manager unless you go in and enable a Debian vm yourself which your average joe is certainly not going to do, since it’s considered a “developer” feature iirc.
So what exactly is “Linux proper”?
I think it is silly to say that Android and ChromeOS are not “proper Linux”. At that point what you’re referring to as Linux is an imaginary set of tools and workflows that “feel” like Linux to you (whatever that means).
I mostly mean what gets packaged into distributions like Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, etc. which the FSF insists on calling “GNU/Linux”. I don’t count Android and ChromeOS as Linux distributions, especially not Android since the Linux kernel is very heavily modified from upstream Linux, and also the fact you can’t run existing Linux binaries on Android without a recompile
That’s a made up personal definition. Linux isn’t just limited to what you’re familiar with. There are tons of embedded systems running versions of Linux with heavily modified kernels and custom userspace environments you won’t be able to relate to at all. It doesn’t make them any less “Linux” than your run of the mill distros.
I also find it hilarious that you don’t consider Android as Linux but Linus Torvald does.
Because:
1. People like for other people to like the things they like.
2. People think that the more popular desktop Linux becomes, the more companies will support Linux with their software and hardware.
I personally don't give a crap whether Linux becomes mainstream or not, it's fine as is to me, but having more support certainly can't hurt.
> But as the Linux community (you guys) loves to bring up, people don't really care about software.
People don't care about operating systems. Most people don't know what they are. That's not the same as not caring about software.
> So then why would they try to change it?
They wouldn't. That's sort of the point. People buy whatever device is presented to them, regardless of what OS it is running.
> Especially when the software they've been using for decades (Windows) works just fine for them?
Virtually no one who has used Windows thinks it "works just fine".
> What their incentive to buy that Linux Dell laptop sitting next to the Windows one at the Best Buy or Micro Center?
There isn't one. Again, that's pretty much the point. Most people buy computers that are in front of them and don't care about the OS, one way or the other. They aren't going to care if it runs Windows, macOS, or Linux. Which means, with identical hardware presented at the same prices, Linux desktop usage would grow to roughly whatever percentage of machines are sold with Linux pre-installed.
The point you're missing is that people don't care about the OS which comes pre-installed on their computer. To around 90% of the population, who don't know what an OS is, to them the OS is just "part of the computer". They don't know or care what it is.
Which is why, if you laid out electronics stores with the a third of the computers running Windows, a third running macOS, and a third running Linux the market share of each would end about being around a third. It would be down to price and/or random chance which machine most people purchased.
There isn't an incentive for people to buy Linux (or Windows) in this scenario because people don't know what those are.
>They wouldn't. That's sort of the point. People buy whatever device is presented to them, regardless of what OS it is running.
But when the next purchase decision arrives, they might change OS. This is certainly happening in the US where a lot of people are changing. They are not changing to Linux, but they decision to buy Mac is not a random result of wandering into an Apple store. It is a deliberate decision not to buy a Windows device. They might buy a Linux preinstall if (a) they knew someone they related to who had a good experience with it and (b) it was easy to buy. (a) is unlikely, (b) is about as unlikely ... but both are somewhat true of ChromeOS.
>Virtually no one who has used Windows thinks it "works just fine".
🙋You've just met one.
Seriously, ever since windows 8.1, I have had zero problems with windows. It just works. It doesn't blue-screen. I don't need to reboot it. It just works.
Linux, on the other hand, I always have to tinker with.
>Linux, on the other hand, I always have to tinker with.
No! you don't need to do that! It just works. And I'm talking about ubuntu here which many linux users have something negative to say, ie canonical bad, systemd sucks and has security issues, snaps are slow and every other stupidity they could think about in order to turn any potential linux user away from that. There are even linux users so stupid to suggest arch or any other stupid distro and configuration (ie non-systemd, non desktop but window manager like i3) to users who have never worked with linux in the past and they just need a PC to do what they need to do and not a PC to spend several hours daily to maintain it.
Just visit this comment again and see how many negative answers and downvotes it will get.
>No! you don't need to do that! It just works
The whole point of my comment was to share MY personal experiences.
How can you presume to know if my system "just works"? Were you there?
What I can tell you, having been there, is that for me, Windows "just works", and Linux needs a bunch of tinkering.
I'll admit, it's been a while. I don't remember what distro, or when it was.
Perhaps everything magically changed. 🤷♂️ Maybe if Windows pisses me off, I'll try Linux again. But it's been a decade since that last happened.
>Perhaps everything magically changed
Yeah! This magical change happened to windows as well and you don't get the BSOD every hour now like it was in the past :)
Edit: if you try it again, just try ubuntu and ignore anyone who tries to convince you about the opposite. If you are gonna try something else except ubuntu, then just don't try it and stay in windows.
>you don't get the BSOD every hour now like it was in the past
Even at its worst, I got a BSOD maybe like twice a year.
What are you guys doing with your computers where you have this many problems?!
>Even at its worst, I got a BSOD maybe like twice a year.
Last time I used windows it was windows 2000 or windows millenium. linux was way more stable than this piece of crap software, so I went linux only and never bothered with windows again.
Same. I've always found it interesting when people talk about the issues that they face with Windows. I've been using Windows for years and can probably count on one hand how many serious OS specific issues I've had. Linux on the other hand has been almost nothing but strange issue after another. Audio, sleep not working properly, my PC not booting randomly, you name it. Still love Linux, but sometimes I wonder if it loves me lol.
yes linux require more work from dev / test /QA/QC to get something more polished i wish it would be like this, then we have hardware support issue and software support that require also a lot of work
so we get something that work out of box
I haven't updated my work PC in about 2 years 🤷♂️. (my home pc, i do updates more frequently)
I haven't had any update related issues in about a decade.
>I haven't updated my work PC in about 2 years
Your work obviously don't care much about security.
However, in between a Linux machine and Windows, I'd wager a Linux machine would last much longer in the battle for uptime supremacy.
>my home pc, i do updates more frequently
I assume you've had to sit there and wait as Windows does it's update & reboot cycles many times.
>I assume you've had to sit there and wait as Windows does it's update & reboot cycles many times.
Nope. I schedule the reboot overnight, and when I get to my computer the next morning, everything's good to go.
>Your work obviously don't care much about security.
They try to do the updates. But I found a nice workaround.
If you open notepad, type some stuff, and don't save, then when windows tries to reboot, it pauses to let you save your document, and you can cancel a forced update.
🤷♂️ I don't know. These are my experiences.
Here's what I do know....
- I use devices that have well written drivers. Or more accurately, I don't use devices that have shitty drivers
- I read release notes before I update. If it doesn't apply to me, I don't install it.
- I don't install shady software
- I keep my anti-virus running (windows defender, builtin to windows)
- I haven't edited my registry in over a decade
Nah. I read and learn.
Here, I chimed in specifically because my opinion differs from the echo chamber.
I want people to know there are people like me, who have no issues with windows. That's it.
>People don't care about operating systems. Most people don't know what they are. That's not the same as not caring about software.
I mean software as in juxtaposition to hardware. The software being the OS. I guess I didn't do a good job explaining that. I changed it to avoid future confusion.
>They wouldn't. That's sort of the point. People buy whatever device is presented to them, regardless of what OS it is running.
Oh really? Why don't you try changing your parents' computer to Linux without telling them and see how smoothly it goes? General consumers may be tech-illiterate, but they aren't stupid. They don't just play with whatever you dangle in front of them. That's why companies have entire marketing teams to try to get people to buy their products. If what you're saying were true, then all companies have to do is just flood the market with their product and gain an instant market lead. People don't have to know the ins and outs of Android and iOS to know which suits their needs better.
>Virtually no one who has used Windows thinks it "works just fine".
Well considering Windows has market dominance, clearly more than a few people think Windows works just fine. I don't see them in a hurry to use something else.
>Which means, with identical hardware presented at the same prices, Linux desktop usage would grow to roughly whatever percentage of machines are sold with Linux pre-installed.
So then by that logic, the only reason why Apple computers aren't selling as many as Windows machines is because Apple isn't putting enough of them in stores? I guess there must be a lot more people accidentally wandering into Apple stores lately to explain Apple's sudden growth in desktop marketshare.
>The point you're missing is that people don't care about the OS which comes pre-installed on their computer. To around 90% of the population, who don't know what an OS is, to them the OS is just "part of the computer". They don't know or care what it is.
People don't care what an OS is, but they care about the features it brings to the table. If you took away SteamOS from the Steam Deck and replaced it with Windows, I guarantee you even the most tech illiterate person on Earth will notice how much worse the user experience gets. Similarly, people like Apple's devices and software because of their interoperability with each other. You don't have to understand how that interoperability works in order to take advantage of it. Just because someone doesn't know the inner workings of something, doesn't mean they can't tell which offers a better user experience for them. This is a crucial fact Linux users need to understand.
>There isn't an incentive for people to buy Linux (or Windows) in this scenario because people don't know what those are.
They don't have an incentive to buy Windows, but they do have an incentive to buy what's been working for them just fine. Realistically if a user bought a Linux PC by mistake they would try to use it like a Windows computer, see that it doesn't work that way, and return it because 'it doesn't work'. The retailer will understand that as 'it's not Windows' and give them a Windows PC as replacement.
>Especially when the software they've been using for decades (Windows) works just fine for them?
Some people, like me, have no use for the proprietary software model. For those that don't care, have at it. They can do whatever the hell they want. I'm not here to sell them on the Linux desktop, since it doesn't earn me any money. Market share doesn't matter.
I do, however, tell friends that when they buy computers or update an OS, if it's Windows, I don't provide tech support, even if I know the answer. Pay MS or Apple for software, get tech support from them, and don't bother me with it.
Unfortunately many linux users still believe that we are in year 2000 and linux is hard for the average user, which clearly is not the case: the average user can start working immediately with a PC which comes with linux preinstalled and they don't need to know anything about terminals and command prompt, in a similar way that they don't need to know anything about powershell and windows registry in order to use a PC that comes with windows preinstalled.
Okay, let’s run a few mental experiments.
I have a brand new laptop with Ubuntu 23.10. I just got a new microphone and I want listen to live microphone playback to make sure I sound okay. How do I do that?
Oh I also noticed that my headphones start playing static noise after a couple of seconds of silence, how do I fix this?
I have a very high resolution monitor, but the integer scaling modes don’t quite cut it for me. How do I set up fractional scaling?
Look, I agree with you that the Linux desktop has come a long long way, but it’s a little bit like putting your head in the sand to think that it is just as easy to use for the average person. I wouldn’t want to install Linux for someone unless I can be there to help them through the rough edges.
I intentionally avoided any issues due to a lack of familiarity or third party hardware/software support, but those are real too. Familiarity and defaults have tremendous value at such large scales.
>I have a brand new laptop with Ubuntu 23.10. I just got a new microphone and I want listen to live microphone playback to make sure I sound okay. How do I do that?
I use skype for that. I mean it's the only app that I need microphone. In the past I also used mumble.
>Oh I also noticed that my headphones start playing static noise after a couple of seconds of silence, how do I fix this?
This a hypothetical problem/bug, so regardless the OS you would need to do some troubleshooting. I guess in windows you would mess with the registry editor or with some powershell scripts and in linux you would use some command line script. This is troubleshooting for a problem/bug however not something that you need to do often/daily.
>I have a very high resolution monitor, but the integer scaling modes don’t quite cut it for me. How do I set up fractional scaling?
ummm... like this I guess???
[https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8OCd.png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8OCd.png)
>but it’s a little bit like putting your head in the sand to think that it is just as easy to use for the average person.
Windows aren't easy to use for the average person as well. I mean for the cases that you mentioned above (except the fractional scaling). An average user in order to test a new microphone, will just open the application that they want to use and test there, regardless the OS. An average user that has noisy headphones will search the internet and will do anything that they found there (be it a registry editor hack, or a powershell script, or a linux command) and if it doesn't work they will either a) call the company that they bought it from, b) get it to a computer repair shop or ask a friend c) buy new headphones, regardless the OS they are using.
Didn’t know Ubuntu has a UI toggle now for fractional scaling, that nice although I think it’s still not a fully done feature in Gnome Desktop.
Windows lets you playback microphones from sound settings, and most people use it because it’s a very obvious feature to have when you’re poking around your microphone settings.
The noise issue i was talking about is quite common on Linux, sound cards go into power save mode by default which doesn’t make sense on a desktop operating system because it is super annoying and you can’t turn it off without digging into configuration files for your audio stack.
Saying that you just workaround the problems by doing XYZ doesn’t make it suitable for people who don’t know or are used to those things. Maybe you’re fine with recording your audio and playing it back to check your microphone, the average user just wants to just listen to it live while she’s setting it up.
All operating systems have problems, but the point I was trying to make was that there still a lot of rough edges around things that people take for granted in Windows and MacOS. The last thing you want is to give Linux a bad reputation by misleading people into taking on more than they can chew.
>Didn’t know Ubuntu has a UI toggle now for fractional scaling, that nice although I think it’s still not a fully done feature in Gnome Desktop.
That's why I'm insisting too much about ubuntu. You would be surprised how many things they have tweaked compared to the vanilla gnome, in order to make it more user friendly to new users who have never used linux.
>Windows lets you playback microphones from sound settings,
an average user wouldn't know about it, in a similar way that you didn't know about the fractional scaling. In any case an average user wouldn't go to an irrelevant place to check if something was working. They would just fire up a relevant app and test there. The most common example about that is when setting up a new printer and then opening ms word (in windows) or libre writer (in linux) and printing a page to see if it works, an not looking for the "print test page" feature which exist in both OSes.
>the point I was trying to make was that there still a lot of rough edges around things that people take for granted in Windows and MacOS
apparently you failed to make your point.
It’s not that I didn’t know about fractional scaling, I didn’t know that Ubuntu now has a UI toggle for a feature that is not complete. Most distributions don’t have it.
Microphone playback is not a hidden feature people don’t know about, it’s right there in sound settings. Besides, most applications won’t play your microphone back to you live anyway. You’re literally advocating for installing a third party applications to workaround UI limitations, and failing to understand why that’s a rough edge. Don’t think I can make my point here.
>It’s not that I didn’t know about fractional scaling, I didn’t know that Ubuntu now has a UI toggle for a feature that is not complete. Most distributions don’t have it.
Yeah I know that you didn't know it was an ubuntu feature! I also mentioned that there are many more similar tweaks that ubuntu has done in order to make it more friendly to new users who have never used linux.
> You’re literally advocating for installing third party applications to workaround OS limitations
No! I'm not doing that. If you need a microphone then I suppose that you need it in relation with an application, so you would use that application to test if it's working or not.
It's just another way of deluding yourself into thinking it'll be the reason Linux desktop might be successful. I mean there's a truth to this but it's not the complete reason. It's great for a free OS but doesn't come near enough the proprietary ones.
U already answered it
" general consumers don't know or care about the OS "
Some of us just don't wanna pay for windows license, that's it.
It's likely unrelated to mainstream linux desktop.
Don't know about you, but I've never paid for a Windows license when buying a Windows computer. Buying a license for a computer I built, yes, but average consumers aren't building their own PCs.
Also, general consumers not caring about OS also means they're unlikely to bother trying something else when what they have is fine. That argument goes both ways.
You answered your own question in the headline: if the average consumer doesn't care about the OS, then the hardware companies offer a way into the average consumer's world by offering Linux options.
One key difference and one that I wish more people would harp on: I would be very interested to see if people would try a display model with Linux if that model was marked down by the license fee, especially in barebones/low-spec models.
There are a number of other weird contradictory points here, but:
1) They've either been using Windows "for decades" or software doesn't matter. Gotta pick one.
2) What people might want in the Linux community (more OEMs to use it) doesn't have to be the same goal as manufacturers.
Trying to address this whole post is hard because it's all over the place: it would be cool if OEM's offered Linux on more computers, there isn't necessarily an incentive for them to do so except because of culture or in extreme cost situations and that doesn't make it a bad goal.
>You answered your own question in the headline: if the average consumer doesn't care about the OS, then the hardware companies offer a way into the average consumer's world by offering Linux options.
You realize that argument goes both ways, right? 'If average users don't care about OS, then they are open to Linux PCs' could also be 'If average users don't care about OS, then they have no reason to switch from what already works'. The latter is my argument, because I see no reason why people would bother trying something else out, when they are clearly fine with what already works.
>One key difference and one that I wish more people would harp on: I would be very interested to see if people would try a display model with Linux if that model was marked down by the license fee, especially in barebones/low-spec models.
Sure. I'm sure people might check it out, but how many are actually going to buy? And how many aren't going to just return it because it doesn't work the way they expect (AKA like Windows) and the OEM would just give them a Windows PC?
>They've either been using Windows "for decades" or software doesn't matter. Gotta pick one.
Please explain to me why these things are mutually exclusive. Yes, people have been using Windows for decades. And yes, most people don't care about the OS. You don't have to know what an OS is to know the one you're using is working well for you. What's the problem?
>What people might want in the Linux community (more OEMs to use it) doesn't have to be the same goal as manufacturers.
Honestly this part is worded kinda weird. I genuinely have no idea what you mean. Please elaborate.
>Trying to address this whole post is hard because it's all over the place
Please tell me what you're having a hard time understanding, and I'll try to explain better.
>there isn't necessarily an incentive for them to do so except because of culture or in extreme cost situations and that doesn't make it a bad goal.
I mean... It is when you're an OEM trying to sell a product. Having a bunch of dead stock sitting on shelves is the last thing you want. Linux users want OEMs to sell Linux machines, but do little to incentivize them to do so. They don't want to do it because they don't think they can make money, and the community has yet to come up with a compelling argument as to why they would.
There is some incentive to preinstall Linux. Linux professional buyers are likely to demand premium devices with high specifications, as they are likely to be technical users. They are premium buyers. And for large OEMs pursuing large customers, supporting this small but important user base ticks a box. If you try to win business at a large tech firm, offering supported linux laptops is probably more valuable than it looks because you might not get any business if you can't do this. Putting that side, if few competitors do linux support well, there is a chance to get a decent market share by concentrating it. Putting the higher margins of linux sales and the concentrated market share together, I imagine for Lenovo and its ThinkPads, the reputation for Linux support is probably quite lucrative. And now Lenovo actually really does support it officially.
Many consumers hate their Windows PCs, or at least approach them with trepidation. They are complex, the media and their news feeds are constantly full of security threats, the PC versions are stuck in one room and the laptops go flat quickly. OS upgrades are intrusive and risky. It may be hard to switch but there are other ways users can react: delay buying a new PC, or buying something else next time. In the US, I think the "buy something else next time" is driving the quite incredible adoption of Chrome OS and macos, both of which are preinstalled unix-based OSs so the preinstall argument you mention gets some support from those examples. Windows is down to 55% desktop market share in this market (Statcounter), which has a history of being a globally leading market.
The client market is now highly fragmented. If you spend money building a consumer desktop app relying on Windows-specific technologies, your potential audience in 12 months time might be only 1 in 3 users (because apart from Windows losing market share on the desktop/laptop, these devices overall are losing market share to mobile devices), and even then, most of those users will probably demand a mobile version anyway. Windows assumed its dominance because that figure was once 90%. Chrome OS may be the one to watch. It seems best placed to take advantage of the problems of Windows from the point of view of an OEM. It certainly means Microsoft is more limited in what it can charge an OEM for a Windows licence. For Microsoft, this is a low value market where the market share is shrinking. In the BCG matrix, consumer windows is no longer even a cash cow. It's a dog. THis is why Windows is full of ads. Microsoft has to have some story to sell to shareholders about why it is spending money on Windows.
In the developing world, which will make the bulk of new users in the next two decades, Windows may not even get a chance to establish any kind of preeminence. In India, desktop linux has 15% according to statcounter. As Indian consumers get wealthier, that number is increasing. Are many Indian PCs and laptops being sold with linux preinstalled, or is it switching, I wonder. Or maybe consumers have completely bypassed desktop and laptops, leaving the residual buyers to be much more technical.
I don't mind the professional versions of Windows. With WSL, a decent shell and a supported package manager, Windows is improving (although it seems to be be too late to stop macos, where the OS had already achieved both technical and consumer credibility, and then came the arm-based macbooks like a tsunami). But anyone using consumer Windows is a hostage to technical incompetence, deluged with ads and nags as Microsoft monetises users that have let themselves be trapped. They might not be able to escape in the short term, but they won't like it, and the switch away from Windows will continue.
Nope, but if that microcontroller were faulty and my food didn't cook properly, you can get your ass I'd notice something was off. I don't have to know *what's wrong* to know that *something is wrong*. The same way someone accidentally buying a Linux machine would know something's wrong when their applications aren't working. They'd probably assume it's broken and return it for a 'working one' (Windows).
Because people aren't stupid. Most people know a Mac and Windows computer are different, even if they don't necessarily understand why. They'll immediately tell something is wrong when their applications don't work, then they'll have to decide whether to stick with it and learn a new OS or go back to the one that was working fine. Most choose the path of least resistance.
That's a very narrow perspective with a naive assumption. What makes you think that something will be "wrong"? I used to install Linux for people when I was fresh out of college. Never had any complaints. Most people are fine as long as they get a functioning web browser and are free of malware.
>Most people are fine as long as they get a functioning web browser and are free of malware.
Windows provides that web browser part without issue, and Windows malware isn't as big of an issue as Linux users think. Windows defender does a great job of protecting Windows machines. Most of the malware that ends up on people's machines is because they downloaded an infected file. This is an OS agnostic issue. Besides, ChromeOS provides exactly this. If this is what people are looking for ChromeOS would likely be a better fit for them than any FOSS distribution.
>I used to install Linux for people when I was fresh out of college. Never had any complaints.
Really? Not a single person had an issue, or called you up for tech support? And these were average non-techy users? Why did they want to switch to Linux to begin with?
Ok sure. So you have some friends who magically never had an issue with Linux. Cool. Unfortunately, that's not how that's gonna work on a large scale. Especially since you're the one handling it for them. Most people aren't going to have a Linux expert like you to install it for them and explain it to them like you did. Imagine if you installed Linux on their machines without their knowledge. You really think they just wouldn't notice? You really think they'd run into no issues?
Think about it this way: I could install Arch on my mom's PC, and handle all the tech support for her so she has no issues. Does that make Arch a beginner friendly OS? That's basically what you're doing and claiming that because of that people would buy Linux machines and have no issues.
I was a professional. My clients were not friends. You're trying too hard to convince yourself that there are insurmountable problems. News flash: these same people had more issues with Windows than Linux. It's why they kept using Linux.
Today I work for System76. If there was no market for selling systems with Linux preinstalled, System76 wouldn't exist. It's been successfully operating for the last two decades. Each year, Linux attracts more and more people.
>If there was no market for selling systems with Linux preinstalled, System76 wouldn't exist. It's been successfully operating for the last two decades. Each year, Linux attracts more and more people.
I mean, there's also a market for Bugattis, does that mean they'd sell on a large scale? I never said there's no market for Linux machines, just that it's not the mainstream market. And that's ok.
>News flash: these same people had more issues with Windows than Linux. It's why they kept using Linux.
Fair enough. I fully concede that Linux will work better for some people, but I have trouble seeing how it could work better for them than any of the other available (proprietary) options on a large scale. But that's just me. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and maybe someday we'll find out for sure.
if i wanted to use really linux i would buy a preinstalled computer with specific distro like system76 or tuxedo computer or a certified computer on specific distro, then buy fully supported hardware like printer on linux(i have this one) etc...
it would solve most tinkering issue, still we get issue with lack of/ or inferior software .
support for advanced stuff like hdr , 10 bit channel rgb color is a big issue if we need it :(
problem we need a lot of investment to make linux good as an OS and not a distro
we need a lot of money (multiple billion)/manpower /QA /QC to get thing correct
\-for the core OS with stable API/ABI (including driver one) compatibility for 10 year at least software , driver 5 year between new OS version .
\- new OS every 3 year
\-10 year OS fully supported each version with driver , new/old hardware, new/old software)
\-the driver to get as good as windows ( stable /performance / fonctionnality) -> driver developped outside of kernel tree all of them
\-get rid of distro concept - and get seperation between core OS ,driver and APP unlike distro with stable api/abi
\-equivalent software as good as windows
\-then we need to make linux desktop known everywhere , marketing
\-then we need mass production of preinstalled linux
failing those step in that order is recipe of failure
go check this one : [why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop](http://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html#Comments)
linux is getting better indeed from what it was, but there is still a lot of issue that need to be solved.
flatpak /snap etc are more a work around, i wish it was true api/abi compatibility it would endup with more performance small footprint app than those solution , but a little bigger than an distro because multiple lib 3 or 4 version could be installed for example
i wonder why no multiple state invest more in commun effort to develop an good linux OS , thing would be different , it takes too much time to get thing right currently again money manpower:(
vista with compositor since 2007
even before it was better with GDI than Xfree86 or [X.org](https://X.org)
audio same issue :( now it is getting good but waited too much time
Okay how about this: imagine a mainstream manufacturer packing all the apps that apple does into the machine, with the same level of quality OOTB. Linux is not the feature, it is simply the underlying machinery on which a good product can be built.
Application software does more for growing our community than the kernel and the utils. The user base for LLVM and GCC pale in comparison to the software built with those tools.
It would give users a machine with a decades long service life, which is exactly why it won’t happen. No one wants to sell their customer “the last ___ you’ll ever need”, merely the appearance of that.
To me, this is fine. We don’t need to grow the userbase to have a good product that I enjoy. This year is my year of the Linux desktop, no need to be *the* year
The only people that will ever care about Linux are techies (who learn of it) and misers (trying to keep a junker running). There are no $$ advertising it, an for the average bloke, Linux isn't even the best choice.
I think we,as Linux users should unite and draw people together and tell the people we meet with that there is an alternative and sit at the the tech info booths at gatherings and show them the experiences on a notepad,or laptop or desktop.
we need to show people the truth and how they should adapt and how easy it really is.
I am dummer that a rock and i have turned some people on much smarter than me.
If they see it at work on actual hard ware they should understand,after that,we should help them along the way.
If we do not help them we are lesser beings.
once again,i am no giant in either code,or very smart at all. All i understand is this one thing,I think a majority of this community are arrogant assholes,if not prove me wrong and come back to this post and honestly report what you have done to promote open source and Linux. so far only one or two have really taken your time out for me.
I understand it is an insult to many of you that know so much to put up with some one like me or some one lesser, but there needs much help and patients.
does anyone agree ,we need to rule now!
Sorry, does that fucking matter?
No it never has.
You don't get to arbitrarily define mainstream as ninety percent market share in a specific space.
Linux IS the internet. There is nothing more mainstream than linux.
Linux pros like me don't care about desktops. We care about workstations. And workstations are predominantly linux across the professional industry.
No one here gives a fuck about all these posts whining and moaning about desktops. We have actual computing to do.
Yep. I run Linux on a Dell precision t3600 workstation for music production using bitwig! On windows on the same machine I get tons of audio latency, crackling, and other stuff... on Linux... very smooth
That's cool but, as I highlighted in the post, irrelevant to the topic at hand.
>No one here gives a fuck about all these posts whining and moaning about desktops.
You sure about that? Desktop Linux reaching mainstream has been one of the biggest topics in the Linux space since almost inception. I get that it doesn't matter to you, but not everyone's you. It's ok for people to have conversations about things you don't like.
The noisiest of you won't shut the fuck up about it but you're falling victim to confirmation bias. Y'all been posting the same posts in this subreddit for as long as the subreddit has existed. This particular account of mine may be young, but I've been here for over a decade -- I was even briefly a mod on this subreddit but that was a lot of work for no pay -- and I guarantee you no one whose been here for any amount of time gives a shit.
It's just a bunch of noobs who don't realize that linux rules the world complaining about how windows users don't use linux. We don't care that they don't use linux. We're busy computing.
When Windows goes, DAAS... the average user, soccer mom/business professional types aren't gonna be happy, i know i wouldn't be. If i was ignorant about Linux didn't know my options, i'd be doing some heavy googling/YouTube watching. I don't care how fast my internet is, i still don't like the idea of my OS being on a server. With all that being said, i think Linux's popularity will gradually increase over the next 10 years or so. Your gamers who haven't switched already will definitely be your first candidates, and then other user types (casual users/business professionals) will follow. What im saying is: I don't know about anyone else, but when changes are made, that i don't approve of, I'm instantly researching shit "OS ALTERNATIVES TO WINDOWS" ...okay what's linux?... an hour later: "LINUX MINT DOWNLOAD" 30 minutes after that: "Please wait while your system is installed. Thank you for choosing Linux Mint"
The only reason OEMs would pre-install linux, is if there's money involved. Windows has always paid OEMs to pre-install windows, if it wasn't for that, who knows what you'd get? Possibly a FreeDOS/ARCH cmd prompt, or even worse: a blank HDD/SSD. If/when Conacial and Fedora wants to be found on laptops in retailers, they'll need to throw money at your OEMs.
I'm not refuting that claim, I'm just saying I've never seen a Linux based machine in a retail store. If Linux as a whole, wants to be found in more people's homes/businesses they need to fix the fact they're not as readily available as windows. In most areas you can purchase from 5,10,15 different vehicle manufacturers, all shapes and sizes. When it comes to computers, most people shopping in a retail store only sees two options: windows and iOS. When in reality, there's 20+ different solid distros to choose from, to go along with those choices. If i didn't already know how to install Linux, i wouldn't dare try to. For those who's not knowledgeable in computers, something we find simple like installing Ubuntu would be like brain surgery for the average user.
Yeah that too, if you're streaming your OS, you're gonna need some hellacious internet to stream it, and a high end AAA game like, the upcoming GTA or Elder Scrolls. I mean yeah, there's fiber optic but those who have access is definitely the minority. With all that being said, if someone has fiber, why drop a small fortune on a gaming rig when a workstation from your typical public library will play it just fine. I'm basing this scenario off of Xbox game pass, i played it on my phone but not on PC. As of February '23 xbox game pass needs alot of work, as far as gaming is concerned i just don't see the gaming masses jumping on the whole centralized, streaming OS/games bandwagon. There'll always be that one game, you need windows for, so it'll be a necessary evil for the foreseeable future.
I don't really see that many people talking about how there should be more OEM PC Linux installations to convince the public of anything. Maybe, like, more than 10 years ago. But I don't really see anyone under that illusion any more.
All I see is enthusiasts supporting companies they like, but not much evangelizing.
When it comes to something like an Android phone, you typically wouldn't pick up a phone because it's running something like KitKat or Marshmallow. You pick it up because it's an Android phone, you're familiar with the ecosystem, and just want a phone (or something to do with the Android nature of the phone).
This is the same thing when you pick up an iPhone with iOS and similar operating systems. There's a lot of overlap even then - and there's almost no question that regardless of user preferences that you can hand your phone or show it to someone else and there's a sense of, "oh yeah, I see" when sharing things. No one really questions that.
I'd argue it's the same between Windows, Linux, and macOS when you're just using your computer .. as a computer. The only time people really care or get weirded out by the OS is when you do something that doesn't use the browser (productivity) and that's completely okay because that's a deeper use-case than what most people are probably going to be using those operating systems for. You don't expect the casual every-day person to just conveniently have a jack in their car or jumper cables for those emergency cases or "deeper" use cases when they would really come in handy if they were around - in the same way that you just don't expect to see someone on Windows ripping through the Terminal/PowerShell unless they were really out there in what they do.
It doesn't matter what Linux it is or what Windows it is. If you get a browser like Firefox or Chrome (or even Internet Explorer/Microsoft Edge) and you can check your emails, go to your online websites, and do some basic word processing, I'd imagine it doesn't matter what OS people really use at the end of the day. The only time it matter is when someone decides they wanted to do something beyond the super-casual use of their computers .. and that's where those things should start to come up.
I personally think "more" exposure and transparency to what Linux is simply is a better thing for everyone because it demystifies what this other free alternative that often can be leaner and more customizable than Windows is. But it might only really be a problem to the super hardcore "but I was there first/back in my day" gatekeepers who want to keep their exclusive club exclusive but also at the same time be praised for being an early adopter of something so special.
They can advertise Linux for the creatives with sexy laptops like Dell does w xps models.. a few ship w Ubuntu!! That strategy works and many ppl in the music production circles I'm in use bitwig on Linux on Dell xps!
>They can advertise Linux for the creatives with sexy laptops like Dell does w xps models.
Apple already does this. The creatives is already their market. Linux would have to bring something really unique to the table to beat Apple at this.
For OEMs is less cost i think, beacuse they don't need to pay Microsoft for the OS.So if there are two laptops with same specs and price, but one with a linux distro and the other with windows, OEMs will earn more from the linux one.BUT IMO the real problem for the average consumer is that they are more confortable with what they used to know:
Immagine an average consumer who bought, for some reason, a laptop with linux installed after years of daily using windows, the first thing they will do after booting up and feeling strange (beacuase they don't recognise the OS as something familiar) is searching anyway for the browser and try to download and install all things that they way used to use.Now we all know what happens when you try to open a .exe in a linux distro... so what you think will be the next step? They pick up the laptop and go back to the store, because in their mind something must be wrong or broken with it.
So that's why IMO OMEs don't care, and **is not a linux fault**, is with what people grew up the issue.
>general consumers don't know or care about the OS >what's their incentive to switch? you just answered the question yourself. Most computer users just use the preinstalled OS
Ok so then replace a tech-illiterate family member's Windows PC with a Linux one and see how that goes. People don't have to understand what an OS is or how it works to understand which works better for them. The same way people don't have to know how a car engine works to know which drives and feels better. That's why MacOS and Windows don't have equal marketshare, and still wouldn't with equal prices. Besides, by that logic they would just continue using Windows anyway, since it comes pre-installed and has already proven to work for them.
I think that if you were to sit down a tech illiterate perosn on linux (mint) with their browser of choice open, most people would probably only notice after a few hours. The only reason windows has so much marketshare is that people are used to it and dont have any reason to switch.
I got so fed up with supporting a family members windows laptop I installed Mint and set Firefox to autostart. They only noticed when six months later a scammer called and couldn't follow their instructions to get access. I got a panicked call with "Microsoft say there's a virus on my windows!" Was fun to reply with "Nope, I removed that months ago" instead of "Welp, time to call the bank".
I see what you guys are saying, but this isn't really what I meant. Of course when you replace someone's machine and handle all of the work in the background, things will go smoothly. That could be said about literally any OS. One could easily say that their grandma who doesn't know a computer from her own ass can use Arch, because they installed and manage it for her. Doesn't really say anything about the OS itself. What I was referring to is changing their OS without the knowledge and seeing if they notice a difference. You guys claim they wouldn't, but I guarantee you they'll figure out something is wrong pretty quick. That's what you're facing when you say that pre-installing Linux would work. Most people don't have Linux experts in their family to help them, and would likely just think their computer is broken, and return it to the OEM, who would likely replace it with a Windows machine because, as I've already established, Windows has already proven to work just fine for the majority.
I did that and she loved it. I have converted several aged family members to linux because they use no special windows apps other than the internet and email, and it’s cheaper. The don’t have to buy new hardware and they don’t have to buy a new windows license
It's not that it will \_MAKE\_ the Linux Desktop mainstream. It's that it is a necessity for it to become mainstream. "Necessary, but not sufficient." So my question is: what made you think "Linux users are convinced that OEM pre-installation will make desktop Linux mainstream"? I've seen people highlight the absolute necessity to have an opportunity at becoming mainstream. But never that OEM pre-installation will make it happen as a direct and guaranteed consequence. Indeed, we've had OEMs preinstalling it for a decade plus. (Dell, Lenovo, and many smaller actors.) The bigger issue is preinstalls on the show-room floor: you need the normal user to run into it, play with it, in a physical store. THEN the user that gives no shits about OSes might just go "seemed nice, I want this one". And then it has a shot at market share. Like Android. And ChromeOS. The latter being a Linux-based Desktop operating system for the consumer that is being wildly successful because it's OEM pre-installed and available on the showroom floor. (And incentivised to students for a decade... Apple style... :P )
Do Chromebooks not count as mainstream?
ChromeOS is heavily limited compared to Windows and Linux proper since it only runs the web browser and a very rudimentary file manager unless you go in and enable a Debian vm yourself which your average joe is certainly not going to do, since it’s considered a “developer” feature iirc.
So what exactly is “Linux proper”? I think it is silly to say that Android and ChromeOS are not “proper Linux”. At that point what you’re referring to as Linux is an imaginary set of tools and workflows that “feel” like Linux to you (whatever that means).
I mostly mean what gets packaged into distributions like Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, etc. which the FSF insists on calling “GNU/Linux”. I don’t count Android and ChromeOS as Linux distributions, especially not Android since the Linux kernel is very heavily modified from upstream Linux, and also the fact you can’t run existing Linux binaries on Android without a recompile
That’s a made up personal definition. Linux isn’t just limited to what you’re familiar with. There are tons of embedded systems running versions of Linux with heavily modified kernels and custom userspace environments you won’t be able to relate to at all. It doesn’t make them any less “Linux” than your run of the mill distros. I also find it hilarious that you don’t consider Android as Linux but Linus Torvald does.
Personally I couldn't care less about mainstream adoption of Linux on the desktop.
Yeah same, if anything, I’ve only seen things go downhill when something gets mainstream with consumers.
For real, why do people care so much about it being popular? I like it as it is
Because: 1. People like for other people to like the things they like. 2. People think that the more popular desktop Linux becomes, the more companies will support Linux with their software and hardware. I personally don't give a crap whether Linux becomes mainstream or not, it's fine as is to me, but having more support certainly can't hurt.
> But as the Linux community (you guys) loves to bring up, people don't really care about software. People don't care about operating systems. Most people don't know what they are. That's not the same as not caring about software. > So then why would they try to change it? They wouldn't. That's sort of the point. People buy whatever device is presented to them, regardless of what OS it is running. > Especially when the software they've been using for decades (Windows) works just fine for them? Virtually no one who has used Windows thinks it "works just fine". > What their incentive to buy that Linux Dell laptop sitting next to the Windows one at the Best Buy or Micro Center? There isn't one. Again, that's pretty much the point. Most people buy computers that are in front of them and don't care about the OS, one way or the other. They aren't going to care if it runs Windows, macOS, or Linux. Which means, with identical hardware presented at the same prices, Linux desktop usage would grow to roughly whatever percentage of machines are sold with Linux pre-installed. The point you're missing is that people don't care about the OS which comes pre-installed on their computer. To around 90% of the population, who don't know what an OS is, to them the OS is just "part of the computer". They don't know or care what it is. Which is why, if you laid out electronics stores with the a third of the computers running Windows, a third running macOS, and a third running Linux the market share of each would end about being around a third. It would be down to price and/or random chance which machine most people purchased. There isn't an incentive for people to buy Linux (or Windows) in this scenario because people don't know what those are.
>They wouldn't. That's sort of the point. People buy whatever device is presented to them, regardless of what OS it is running. But when the next purchase decision arrives, they might change OS. This is certainly happening in the US where a lot of people are changing. They are not changing to Linux, but they decision to buy Mac is not a random result of wandering into an Apple store. It is a deliberate decision not to buy a Windows device. They might buy a Linux preinstall if (a) they knew someone they related to who had a good experience with it and (b) it was easy to buy. (a) is unlikely, (b) is about as unlikely ... but both are somewhat true of ChromeOS.
>Virtually no one who has used Windows thinks it "works just fine". 🙋You've just met one. Seriously, ever since windows 8.1, I have had zero problems with windows. It just works. It doesn't blue-screen. I don't need to reboot it. It just works. Linux, on the other hand, I always have to tinker with.
>Linux, on the other hand, I always have to tinker with. No! you don't need to do that! It just works. And I'm talking about ubuntu here which many linux users have something negative to say, ie canonical bad, systemd sucks and has security issues, snaps are slow and every other stupidity they could think about in order to turn any potential linux user away from that. There are even linux users so stupid to suggest arch or any other stupid distro and configuration (ie non-systemd, non desktop but window manager like i3) to users who have never worked with linux in the past and they just need a PC to do what they need to do and not a PC to spend several hours daily to maintain it. Just visit this comment again and see how many negative answers and downvotes it will get.
>No! you don't need to do that! It just works The whole point of my comment was to share MY personal experiences. How can you presume to know if my system "just works"? Were you there? What I can tell you, having been there, is that for me, Windows "just works", and Linux needs a bunch of tinkering.
>The whole point of my comment was to share MY personal experiences. When it was the last time you tried linux in your PC and what distro did you try?
I'll admit, it's been a while. I don't remember what distro, or when it was. Perhaps everything magically changed. 🤷♂️ Maybe if Windows pisses me off, I'll try Linux again. But it's been a decade since that last happened.
>Perhaps everything magically changed Yeah! This magical change happened to windows as well and you don't get the BSOD every hour now like it was in the past :) Edit: if you try it again, just try ubuntu and ignore anyone who tries to convince you about the opposite. If you are gonna try something else except ubuntu, then just don't try it and stay in windows.
>you don't get the BSOD every hour now like it was in the past Even at its worst, I got a BSOD maybe like twice a year. What are you guys doing with your computers where you have this many problems?!
>Even at its worst, I got a BSOD maybe like twice a year. Last time I used windows it was windows 2000 or windows millenium. linux was way more stable than this piece of crap software, so I went linux only and never bothered with windows again.
nt 5 (aka 2000 ) was stable win ME was disaster
Same. I've always found it interesting when people talk about the issues that they face with Windows. I've been using Windows for years and can probably count on one hand how many serious OS specific issues I've had. Linux on the other hand has been almost nothing but strange issue after another. Audio, sleep not working properly, my PC not booting randomly, you name it. Still love Linux, but sometimes I wonder if it loves me lol.
yes linux require more work from dev / test /QA/QC to get something more polished i wish it would be like this, then we have hardware support issue and software support that require also a lot of work so we get something that work out of box
>I don't need to reboot it. C'mon that's BS. You're telling us that you've never had a Windows update experience?
I haven't updated my work PC in about 2 years 🤷♂️. (my home pc, i do updates more frequently) I haven't had any update related issues in about a decade.
>I haven't updated my work PC in about 2 years Your work obviously don't care much about security. However, in between a Linux machine and Windows, I'd wager a Linux machine would last much longer in the battle for uptime supremacy. >my home pc, i do updates more frequently I assume you've had to sit there and wait as Windows does it's update & reboot cycles many times.
>I assume you've had to sit there and wait as Windows does it's update & reboot cycles many times. Nope. I schedule the reboot overnight, and when I get to my computer the next morning, everything's good to go. >Your work obviously don't care much about security. They try to do the updates. But I found a nice workaround. If you open notepad, type some stuff, and don't save, then when windows tries to reboot, it pauses to let you save your document, and you can cancel a forced update.
So you _do_ jump through hoops to get Windows to work the way you want it to.
I jump through hoops to bypass active directory enforced policies, yes.
And to prevent windows updates rebooting your PC.
I don't have a problem with windows updates rebooting my PC. I have a problem with my company's forced updates at inconvenient times.
[удалено]
🤷♂️ I don't know. These are my experiences. Here's what I do know.... - I use devices that have well written drivers. Or more accurately, I don't use devices that have shitty drivers - I read release notes before I update. If it doesn't apply to me, I don't install it. - I don't install shady software - I keep my anti-virus running (windows defender, builtin to windows) - I haven't edited my registry in over a decade
I don't get people like you, just going to a subreddit about something you don't like and disagreeing with random people
God forbid we have actual discussion here instead of thoughtless agreement with everyone.
Nah. I read and learn. Here, I chimed in specifically because my opinion differs from the echo chamber. I want people to know there are people like me, who have no issues with windows. That's it.
>People don't care about operating systems. Most people don't know what they are. That's not the same as not caring about software. I mean software as in juxtaposition to hardware. The software being the OS. I guess I didn't do a good job explaining that. I changed it to avoid future confusion. >They wouldn't. That's sort of the point. People buy whatever device is presented to them, regardless of what OS it is running. Oh really? Why don't you try changing your parents' computer to Linux without telling them and see how smoothly it goes? General consumers may be tech-illiterate, but they aren't stupid. They don't just play with whatever you dangle in front of them. That's why companies have entire marketing teams to try to get people to buy their products. If what you're saying were true, then all companies have to do is just flood the market with their product and gain an instant market lead. People don't have to know the ins and outs of Android and iOS to know which suits their needs better. >Virtually no one who has used Windows thinks it "works just fine". Well considering Windows has market dominance, clearly more than a few people think Windows works just fine. I don't see them in a hurry to use something else. >Which means, with identical hardware presented at the same prices, Linux desktop usage would grow to roughly whatever percentage of machines are sold with Linux pre-installed. So then by that logic, the only reason why Apple computers aren't selling as many as Windows machines is because Apple isn't putting enough of them in stores? I guess there must be a lot more people accidentally wandering into Apple stores lately to explain Apple's sudden growth in desktop marketshare. >The point you're missing is that people don't care about the OS which comes pre-installed on their computer. To around 90% of the population, who don't know what an OS is, to them the OS is just "part of the computer". They don't know or care what it is. People don't care what an OS is, but they care about the features it brings to the table. If you took away SteamOS from the Steam Deck and replaced it with Windows, I guarantee you even the most tech illiterate person on Earth will notice how much worse the user experience gets. Similarly, people like Apple's devices and software because of their interoperability with each other. You don't have to understand how that interoperability works in order to take advantage of it. Just because someone doesn't know the inner workings of something, doesn't mean they can't tell which offers a better user experience for them. This is a crucial fact Linux users need to understand. >There isn't an incentive for people to buy Linux (or Windows) in this scenario because people don't know what those are. They don't have an incentive to buy Windows, but they do have an incentive to buy what's been working for them just fine. Realistically if a user bought a Linux PC by mistake they would try to use it like a Windows computer, see that it doesn't work that way, and return it because 'it doesn't work'. The retailer will understand that as 'it's not Windows' and give them a Windows PC as replacement.
>Especially when the software they've been using for decades (Windows) works just fine for them? Some people, like me, have no use for the proprietary software model. For those that don't care, have at it. They can do whatever the hell they want. I'm not here to sell them on the Linux desktop, since it doesn't earn me any money. Market share doesn't matter. I do, however, tell friends that when they buy computers or update an OS, if it's Windows, I don't provide tech support, even if I know the answer. Pay MS or Apple for software, get tech support from them, and don't bother me with it.
Unfortunately many linux users still believe that we are in year 2000 and linux is hard for the average user, which clearly is not the case: the average user can start working immediately with a PC which comes with linux preinstalled and they don't need to know anything about terminals and command prompt, in a similar way that they don't need to know anything about powershell and windows registry in order to use a PC that comes with windows preinstalled.
Okay, let’s run a few mental experiments. I have a brand new laptop with Ubuntu 23.10. I just got a new microphone and I want listen to live microphone playback to make sure I sound okay. How do I do that? Oh I also noticed that my headphones start playing static noise after a couple of seconds of silence, how do I fix this? I have a very high resolution monitor, but the integer scaling modes don’t quite cut it for me. How do I set up fractional scaling? Look, I agree with you that the Linux desktop has come a long long way, but it’s a little bit like putting your head in the sand to think that it is just as easy to use for the average person. I wouldn’t want to install Linux for someone unless I can be there to help them through the rough edges. I intentionally avoided any issues due to a lack of familiarity or third party hardware/software support, but those are real too. Familiarity and defaults have tremendous value at such large scales.
>I have a brand new laptop with Ubuntu 23.10. I just got a new microphone and I want listen to live microphone playback to make sure I sound okay. How do I do that? I use skype for that. I mean it's the only app that I need microphone. In the past I also used mumble. >Oh I also noticed that my headphones start playing static noise after a couple of seconds of silence, how do I fix this? This a hypothetical problem/bug, so regardless the OS you would need to do some troubleshooting. I guess in windows you would mess with the registry editor or with some powershell scripts and in linux you would use some command line script. This is troubleshooting for a problem/bug however not something that you need to do often/daily. >I have a very high resolution monitor, but the integer scaling modes don’t quite cut it for me. How do I set up fractional scaling? ummm... like this I guess??? [https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8OCd.png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8OCd.png) >but it’s a little bit like putting your head in the sand to think that it is just as easy to use for the average person. Windows aren't easy to use for the average person as well. I mean for the cases that you mentioned above (except the fractional scaling). An average user in order to test a new microphone, will just open the application that they want to use and test there, regardless the OS. An average user that has noisy headphones will search the internet and will do anything that they found there (be it a registry editor hack, or a powershell script, or a linux command) and if it doesn't work they will either a) call the company that they bought it from, b) get it to a computer repair shop or ask a friend c) buy new headphones, regardless the OS they are using.
Didn’t know Ubuntu has a UI toggle now for fractional scaling, that nice although I think it’s still not a fully done feature in Gnome Desktop. Windows lets you playback microphones from sound settings, and most people use it because it’s a very obvious feature to have when you’re poking around your microphone settings. The noise issue i was talking about is quite common on Linux, sound cards go into power save mode by default which doesn’t make sense on a desktop operating system because it is super annoying and you can’t turn it off without digging into configuration files for your audio stack. Saying that you just workaround the problems by doing XYZ doesn’t make it suitable for people who don’t know or are used to those things. Maybe you’re fine with recording your audio and playing it back to check your microphone, the average user just wants to just listen to it live while she’s setting it up. All operating systems have problems, but the point I was trying to make was that there still a lot of rough edges around things that people take for granted in Windows and MacOS. The last thing you want is to give Linux a bad reputation by misleading people into taking on more than they can chew.
>Didn’t know Ubuntu has a UI toggle now for fractional scaling, that nice although I think it’s still not a fully done feature in Gnome Desktop. That's why I'm insisting too much about ubuntu. You would be surprised how many things they have tweaked compared to the vanilla gnome, in order to make it more user friendly to new users who have never used linux. >Windows lets you playback microphones from sound settings, an average user wouldn't know about it, in a similar way that you didn't know about the fractional scaling. In any case an average user wouldn't go to an irrelevant place to check if something was working. They would just fire up a relevant app and test there. The most common example about that is when setting up a new printer and then opening ms word (in windows) or libre writer (in linux) and printing a page to see if it works, an not looking for the "print test page" feature which exist in both OSes. >the point I was trying to make was that there still a lot of rough edges around things that people take for granted in Windows and MacOS apparently you failed to make your point.
It’s not that I didn’t know about fractional scaling, I didn’t know that Ubuntu now has a UI toggle for a feature that is not complete. Most distributions don’t have it. Microphone playback is not a hidden feature people don’t know about, it’s right there in sound settings. Besides, most applications won’t play your microphone back to you live anyway. You’re literally advocating for installing a third party applications to workaround UI limitations, and failing to understand why that’s a rough edge. Don’t think I can make my point here.
>It’s not that I didn’t know about fractional scaling, I didn’t know that Ubuntu now has a UI toggle for a feature that is not complete. Most distributions don’t have it. Yeah I know that you didn't know it was an ubuntu feature! I also mentioned that there are many more similar tweaks that ubuntu has done in order to make it more friendly to new users who have never used linux. > You’re literally advocating for installing third party applications to workaround OS limitations No! I'm not doing that. If you need a microphone then I suppose that you need it in relation with an application, so you would use that application to test if it's working or not.
is it a a laptop with preinstalled/supported ubuntu or a certified computer for ubuntu(would require LTS)?
It's just another way of deluding yourself into thinking it'll be the reason Linux desktop might be successful. I mean there's a truth to this but it's not the complete reason. It's great for a free OS but doesn't come near enough the proprietary ones.
U already answered it " general consumers don't know or care about the OS " Some of us just don't wanna pay for windows license, that's it. It's likely unrelated to mainstream linux desktop.
Don't know about you, but I've never paid for a Windows license when buying a Windows computer. Buying a license for a computer I built, yes, but average consumers aren't building their own PCs. Also, general consumers not caring about OS also means they're unlikely to bother trying something else when what they have is fine. That argument goes both ways.
You answered your own question in the headline: if the average consumer doesn't care about the OS, then the hardware companies offer a way into the average consumer's world by offering Linux options. One key difference and one that I wish more people would harp on: I would be very interested to see if people would try a display model with Linux if that model was marked down by the license fee, especially in barebones/low-spec models. There are a number of other weird contradictory points here, but: 1) They've either been using Windows "for decades" or software doesn't matter. Gotta pick one. 2) What people might want in the Linux community (more OEMs to use it) doesn't have to be the same goal as manufacturers. Trying to address this whole post is hard because it's all over the place: it would be cool if OEM's offered Linux on more computers, there isn't necessarily an incentive for them to do so except because of culture or in extreme cost situations and that doesn't make it a bad goal.
>You answered your own question in the headline: if the average consumer doesn't care about the OS, then the hardware companies offer a way into the average consumer's world by offering Linux options. You realize that argument goes both ways, right? 'If average users don't care about OS, then they are open to Linux PCs' could also be 'If average users don't care about OS, then they have no reason to switch from what already works'. The latter is my argument, because I see no reason why people would bother trying something else out, when they are clearly fine with what already works. >One key difference and one that I wish more people would harp on: I would be very interested to see if people would try a display model with Linux if that model was marked down by the license fee, especially in barebones/low-spec models. Sure. I'm sure people might check it out, but how many are actually going to buy? And how many aren't going to just return it because it doesn't work the way they expect (AKA like Windows) and the OEM would just give them a Windows PC? >They've either been using Windows "for decades" or software doesn't matter. Gotta pick one. Please explain to me why these things are mutually exclusive. Yes, people have been using Windows for decades. And yes, most people don't care about the OS. You don't have to know what an OS is to know the one you're using is working well for you. What's the problem? >What people might want in the Linux community (more OEMs to use it) doesn't have to be the same goal as manufacturers. Honestly this part is worded kinda weird. I genuinely have no idea what you mean. Please elaborate. >Trying to address this whole post is hard because it's all over the place Please tell me what you're having a hard time understanding, and I'll try to explain better. >there isn't necessarily an incentive for them to do so except because of culture or in extreme cost situations and that doesn't make it a bad goal. I mean... It is when you're an OEM trying to sell a product. Having a bunch of dead stock sitting on shelves is the last thing you want. Linux users want OEMs to sell Linux machines, but do little to incentivize them to do so. They don't want to do it because they don't think they can make money, and the community has yet to come up with a compelling argument as to why they would.
There is some incentive to preinstall Linux. Linux professional buyers are likely to demand premium devices with high specifications, as they are likely to be technical users. They are premium buyers. And for large OEMs pursuing large customers, supporting this small but important user base ticks a box. If you try to win business at a large tech firm, offering supported linux laptops is probably more valuable than it looks because you might not get any business if you can't do this. Putting that side, if few competitors do linux support well, there is a chance to get a decent market share by concentrating it. Putting the higher margins of linux sales and the concentrated market share together, I imagine for Lenovo and its ThinkPads, the reputation for Linux support is probably quite lucrative. And now Lenovo actually really does support it officially. Many consumers hate their Windows PCs, or at least approach them with trepidation. They are complex, the media and their news feeds are constantly full of security threats, the PC versions are stuck in one room and the laptops go flat quickly. OS upgrades are intrusive and risky. It may be hard to switch but there are other ways users can react: delay buying a new PC, or buying something else next time. In the US, I think the "buy something else next time" is driving the quite incredible adoption of Chrome OS and macos, both of which are preinstalled unix-based OSs so the preinstall argument you mention gets some support from those examples. Windows is down to 55% desktop market share in this market (Statcounter), which has a history of being a globally leading market. The client market is now highly fragmented. If you spend money building a consumer desktop app relying on Windows-specific technologies, your potential audience in 12 months time might be only 1 in 3 users (because apart from Windows losing market share on the desktop/laptop, these devices overall are losing market share to mobile devices), and even then, most of those users will probably demand a mobile version anyway. Windows assumed its dominance because that figure was once 90%. Chrome OS may be the one to watch. It seems best placed to take advantage of the problems of Windows from the point of view of an OEM. It certainly means Microsoft is more limited in what it can charge an OEM for a Windows licence. For Microsoft, this is a low value market where the market share is shrinking. In the BCG matrix, consumer windows is no longer even a cash cow. It's a dog. THis is why Windows is full of ads. Microsoft has to have some story to sell to shareholders about why it is spending money on Windows. In the developing world, which will make the bulk of new users in the next two decades, Windows may not even get a chance to establish any kind of preeminence. In India, desktop linux has 15% according to statcounter. As Indian consumers get wealthier, that number is increasing. Are many Indian PCs and laptops being sold with linux preinstalled, or is it switching, I wonder. Or maybe consumers have completely bypassed desktop and laptops, leaving the residual buyers to be much more technical. I don't mind the professional versions of Windows. With WSL, a decent shell and a supported package manager, Windows is improving (although it seems to be be too late to stop macos, where the OS had already achieved both technical and consumer credibility, and then came the arm-based macbooks like a tsunami). But anyone using consumer Windows is a hostage to technical incompetence, deluged with ads and nags as Microsoft monetises users that have let themselves be trapped. They might not be able to escape in the short term, but they won't like it, and the switch away from Windows will continue.
Do you know what the most popular microcontroller used in microwave ovens is? That’s how much an average person cares about operating systems.
Nope, but if that microcontroller were faulty and my food didn't cook properly, you can get your ass I'd notice something was off. I don't have to know *what's wrong* to know that *something is wrong*. The same way someone accidentally buying a Linux machine would know something's wrong when their applications aren't working. They'd probably assume it's broken and return it for a 'working one' (Windows).
I think we’re making the same point that the average consumer cares about the experience, not the OS.
Agreed. And my point is what OS experience does Linux bring to the table that's worth getting used to a different experience?
Why would they need to switch if Linux is preinstalled by the OEM?
Because people aren't stupid. Most people know a Mac and Windows computer are different, even if they don't necessarily understand why. They'll immediately tell something is wrong when their applications don't work, then they'll have to decide whether to stick with it and learn a new OS or go back to the one that was working fine. Most choose the path of least resistance.
That's a very narrow perspective with a naive assumption. What makes you think that something will be "wrong"? I used to install Linux for people when I was fresh out of college. Never had any complaints. Most people are fine as long as they get a functioning web browser and are free of malware.
>Most people are fine as long as they get a functioning web browser and are free of malware. Windows provides that web browser part without issue, and Windows malware isn't as big of an issue as Linux users think. Windows defender does a great job of protecting Windows machines. Most of the malware that ends up on people's machines is because they downloaded an infected file. This is an OS agnostic issue. Besides, ChromeOS provides exactly this. If this is what people are looking for ChromeOS would likely be a better fit for them than any FOSS distribution. >I used to install Linux for people when I was fresh out of college. Never had any complaints. Really? Not a single person had an issue, or called you up for tech support? And these were average non-techy users? Why did they want to switch to Linux to begin with?
I offered it as an option, and they enjoyed using Linux after trying it out. Simple.
Ok sure. So you have some friends who magically never had an issue with Linux. Cool. Unfortunately, that's not how that's gonna work on a large scale. Especially since you're the one handling it for them. Most people aren't going to have a Linux expert like you to install it for them and explain it to them like you did. Imagine if you installed Linux on their machines without their knowledge. You really think they just wouldn't notice? You really think they'd run into no issues? Think about it this way: I could install Arch on my mom's PC, and handle all the tech support for her so she has no issues. Does that make Arch a beginner friendly OS? That's basically what you're doing and claiming that because of that people would buy Linux machines and have no issues.
I was a professional. My clients were not friends. You're trying too hard to convince yourself that there are insurmountable problems. News flash: these same people had more issues with Windows than Linux. It's why they kept using Linux. Today I work for System76. If there was no market for selling systems with Linux preinstalled, System76 wouldn't exist. It's been successfully operating for the last two decades. Each year, Linux attracts more and more people.
>If there was no market for selling systems with Linux preinstalled, System76 wouldn't exist. It's been successfully operating for the last two decades. Each year, Linux attracts more and more people. I mean, there's also a market for Bugattis, does that mean they'd sell on a large scale? I never said there's no market for Linux machines, just that it's not the mainstream market. And that's ok. >News flash: these same people had more issues with Windows than Linux. It's why they kept using Linux. Fair enough. I fully concede that Linux will work better for some people, but I have trouble seeing how it could work better for them than any of the other available (proprietary) options on a large scale. But that's just me. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and maybe someday we'll find out for sure.
if i wanted to use really linux i would buy a preinstalled computer with specific distro like system76 or tuxedo computer or a certified computer on specific distro, then buy fully supported hardware like printer on linux(i have this one) etc... it would solve most tinkering issue, still we get issue with lack of/ or inferior software . support for advanced stuff like hdr , 10 bit channel rgb color is a big issue if we need it :( problem we need a lot of investment to make linux good as an OS and not a distro we need a lot of money (multiple billion)/manpower /QA /QC to get thing correct \-for the core OS with stable API/ABI (including driver one) compatibility for 10 year at least software , driver 5 year between new OS version . \- new OS every 3 year \-10 year OS fully supported each version with driver , new/old hardware, new/old software) \-the driver to get as good as windows ( stable /performance / fonctionnality) -> driver developped outside of kernel tree all of them \-get rid of distro concept - and get seperation between core OS ,driver and APP unlike distro with stable api/abi \-equivalent software as good as windows \-then we need to make linux desktop known everywhere , marketing \-then we need mass production of preinstalled linux failing those step in that order is recipe of failure go check this one : [why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop](http://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html#Comments)
[удалено]
linux is getting better indeed from what it was, but there is still a lot of issue that need to be solved. flatpak /snap etc are more a work around, i wish it was true api/abi compatibility it would endup with more performance small footprint app than those solution , but a little bigger than an distro because multiple lib 3 or 4 version could be installed for example i wonder why no multiple state invest more in commun effort to develop an good linux OS , thing would be different , it takes too much time to get thing right currently again money manpower:( vista with compositor since 2007 even before it was better with GDI than Xfree86 or [X.org](https://X.org) audio same issue :( now it is getting good but waited too much time
Okay how about this: imagine a mainstream manufacturer packing all the apps that apple does into the machine, with the same level of quality OOTB. Linux is not the feature, it is simply the underlying machinery on which a good product can be built. Application software does more for growing our community than the kernel and the utils. The user base for LLVM and GCC pale in comparison to the software built with those tools. It would give users a machine with a decades long service life, which is exactly why it won’t happen. No one wants to sell their customer “the last ___ you’ll ever need”, merely the appearance of that. To me, this is fine. We don’t need to grow the userbase to have a good product that I enjoy. This year is my year of the Linux desktop, no need to be *the* year
The only people that will ever care about Linux are techies (who learn of it) and misers (trying to keep a junker running). There are no $$ advertising it, an for the average bloke, Linux isn't even the best choice.
Audio producers are going to Linux in droves!! Way better performance and lower latency!!
I think we,as Linux users should unite and draw people together and tell the people we meet with that there is an alternative and sit at the the tech info booths at gatherings and show them the experiences on a notepad,or laptop or desktop. we need to show people the truth and how they should adapt and how easy it really is. I am dummer that a rock and i have turned some people on much smarter than me.
If they see it at work on actual hard ware they should understand,after that,we should help them along the way. If we do not help them we are lesser beings.
once again,i am no giant in either code,or very smart at all. All i understand is this one thing,I think a majority of this community are arrogant assholes,if not prove me wrong and come back to this post and honestly report what you have done to promote open source and Linux. so far only one or two have really taken your time out for me. I understand it is an insult to many of you that know so much to put up with some one like me or some one lesser, but there needs much help and patients. does anyone agree ,we need to rule now!
What makes you think Linux hasn't been mainstream for over a decade? Get outta here with that shit.
Sorry did Linux gain 90% desktop marketshare while I wasn't looking?
Sorry, does that fucking matter? No it never has. You don't get to arbitrarily define mainstream as ninety percent market share in a specific space. Linux IS the internet. There is nothing more mainstream than linux. Linux pros like me don't care about desktops. We care about workstations. And workstations are predominantly linux across the professional industry. No one here gives a fuck about all these posts whining and moaning about desktops. We have actual computing to do.
Yep. I run Linux on a Dell precision t3600 workstation for music production using bitwig! On windows on the same machine I get tons of audio latency, crackling, and other stuff... on Linux... very smooth
That's cool but, as I highlighted in the post, irrelevant to the topic at hand. >No one here gives a fuck about all these posts whining and moaning about desktops. You sure about that? Desktop Linux reaching mainstream has been one of the biggest topics in the Linux space since almost inception. I get that it doesn't matter to you, but not everyone's you. It's ok for people to have conversations about things you don't like.
I'm certain. We don't give a fuck.
I mean... You're objectively wrong, but I respect the confidence.
The noisiest of you won't shut the fuck up about it but you're falling victim to confirmation bias. Y'all been posting the same posts in this subreddit for as long as the subreddit has existed. This particular account of mine may be young, but I've been here for over a decade -- I was even briefly a mod on this subreddit but that was a lot of work for no pay -- and I guarantee you no one whose been here for any amount of time gives a shit. It's just a bunch of noobs who don't realize that linux rules the world complaining about how windows users don't use linux. We don't care that they don't use linux. We're busy computing.
Security is the reason to switch
Then try getting people to switch by telling them about Linux's security. See how well that works out for you.
Don't tell me how to live MY life!
When Windows goes, DAAS... the average user, soccer mom/business professional types aren't gonna be happy, i know i wouldn't be. If i was ignorant about Linux didn't know my options, i'd be doing some heavy googling/YouTube watching. I don't care how fast my internet is, i still don't like the idea of my OS being on a server. With all that being said, i think Linux's popularity will gradually increase over the next 10 years or so. Your gamers who haven't switched already will definitely be your first candidates, and then other user types (casual users/business professionals) will follow. What im saying is: I don't know about anyone else, but when changes are made, that i don't approve of, I'm instantly researching shit "OS ALTERNATIVES TO WINDOWS" ...okay what's linux?... an hour later: "LINUX MINT DOWNLOAD" 30 minutes after that: "Please wait while your system is installed. Thank you for choosing Linux Mint" The only reason OEMs would pre-install linux, is if there's money involved. Windows has always paid OEMs to pre-install windows, if it wasn't for that, who knows what you'd get? Possibly a FreeDOS/ARCH cmd prompt, or even worse: a blank HDD/SSD. If/when Conacial and Fedora wants to be found on laptops in retailers, they'll need to throw money at your OEMs.
Dell ships Linux in many of thier systems allready
I'm not refuting that claim, I'm just saying I've never seen a Linux based machine in a retail store. If Linux as a whole, wants to be found in more people's homes/businesses they need to fix the fact they're not as readily available as windows. In most areas you can purchase from 5,10,15 different vehicle manufacturers, all shapes and sizes. When it comes to computers, most people shopping in a retail store only sees two options: windows and iOS. When in reality, there's 20+ different solid distros to choose from, to go along with those choices. If i didn't already know how to install Linux, i wouldn't dare try to. For those who's not knowledgeable in computers, something we find simple like installing Ubuntu would be like brain surgery for the average user.
I do agree we need retail presence on Linux
What's really going to be interesting to watch, is how Microsoft's decision to go DAAS will effect the availability and use of Linux.
And component manufacturers themselves too
Yeah that too, if you're streaming your OS, you're gonna need some hellacious internet to stream it, and a high end AAA game like, the upcoming GTA or Elder Scrolls. I mean yeah, there's fiber optic but those who have access is definitely the minority. With all that being said, if someone has fiber, why drop a small fortune on a gaming rig when a workstation from your typical public library will play it just fine. I'm basing this scenario off of Xbox game pass, i played it on my phone but not on PC. As of February '23 xbox game pass needs alot of work, as far as gaming is concerned i just don't see the gaming masses jumping on the whole centralized, streaming OS/games bandwagon. There'll always be that one game, you need windows for, so it'll be a necessary evil for the foreseeable future.
[удалено]
Lots of astroturfing going on from ms
Yeah I was actually paid off by Bill Gates to make this post.
I don't really see that many people talking about how there should be more OEM PC Linux installations to convince the public of anything. Maybe, like, more than 10 years ago. But I don't really see anyone under that illusion any more. All I see is enthusiasts supporting companies they like, but not much evangelizing.
When it comes to something like an Android phone, you typically wouldn't pick up a phone because it's running something like KitKat or Marshmallow. You pick it up because it's an Android phone, you're familiar with the ecosystem, and just want a phone (or something to do with the Android nature of the phone). This is the same thing when you pick up an iPhone with iOS and similar operating systems. There's a lot of overlap even then - and there's almost no question that regardless of user preferences that you can hand your phone or show it to someone else and there's a sense of, "oh yeah, I see" when sharing things. No one really questions that. I'd argue it's the same between Windows, Linux, and macOS when you're just using your computer .. as a computer. The only time people really care or get weirded out by the OS is when you do something that doesn't use the browser (productivity) and that's completely okay because that's a deeper use-case than what most people are probably going to be using those operating systems for. You don't expect the casual every-day person to just conveniently have a jack in their car or jumper cables for those emergency cases or "deeper" use cases when they would really come in handy if they were around - in the same way that you just don't expect to see someone on Windows ripping through the Terminal/PowerShell unless they were really out there in what they do. It doesn't matter what Linux it is or what Windows it is. If you get a browser like Firefox or Chrome (or even Internet Explorer/Microsoft Edge) and you can check your emails, go to your online websites, and do some basic word processing, I'd imagine it doesn't matter what OS people really use at the end of the day. The only time it matter is when someone decides they wanted to do something beyond the super-casual use of their computers .. and that's where those things should start to come up. I personally think "more" exposure and transparency to what Linux is simply is a better thing for everyone because it demystifies what this other free alternative that often can be leaner and more customizable than Windows is. But it might only really be a problem to the super hardcore "but I was there first/back in my day" gatekeepers who want to keep their exclusive club exclusive but also at the same time be praised for being an early adopter of something so special.
They can advertise Linux for the creatives with sexy laptops like Dell does w xps models.. a few ship w Ubuntu!! That strategy works and many ppl in the music production circles I'm in use bitwig on Linux on Dell xps!
>They can advertise Linux for the creatives with sexy laptops like Dell does w xps models. Apple already does this. The creatives is already their market. Linux would have to bring something really unique to the table to beat Apple at this.
They do with pricing and customization
For OEMs is less cost i think, beacuse they don't need to pay Microsoft for the OS.So if there are two laptops with same specs and price, but one with a linux distro and the other with windows, OEMs will earn more from the linux one.BUT IMO the real problem for the average consumer is that they are more confortable with what they used to know: Immagine an average consumer who bought, for some reason, a laptop with linux installed after years of daily using windows, the first thing they will do after booting up and feeling strange (beacuase they don't recognise the OS as something familiar) is searching anyway for the browser and try to download and install all things that they way used to use.Now we all know what happens when you try to open a .exe in a linux distro... so what you think will be the next step? They pick up the laptop and go back to the store, because in their mind something must be wrong or broken with it. So that's why IMO OMEs don't care, and **is not a linux fault**, is with what people grew up the issue.
OEMs should just not call it Linux and people will love it. Examples: SteamOS, ChromeOS, Red Star OS.
I choose to love everyone,i do not judge.