What makes switching to GNU Linux almost impossible for many?
nixsanctuary.com
nixsanctuary.com
Unlike the prevalent opinion here, I disagree that modern GNU/Linux distros have bad UI/UX. Once set up, the average person is very well served by modern GNU/Linux. I installed Kubuntu for my parents (they're in their 60s, very non-technical people) and they've been using it no problem for 4 years now. My father even reinstalled it from scratch himself after their SSD died by just following the installer. I almost never get any technical support requests from them either.
It works fine for everything personal I use it for. I use a Windows work computer for the rest.
Often those tasks involve a particular workflow they know, so alternative applications must support the exact same workflow to be acceptable.
Linux usually has different workflows, and thus can't accomplish the same tasks. It can often accomplish similar tasks, but that's not usually good enough to be worth the effort of switching away from a default. The alternative has to be significantly better than the original.
Some tasks also have network effects, e.g. online games. Alternatives that aren't compatible with the existing network are useless.
Most people don't care about the OS. They don't really care about the particular applications. People care about the tasks they want to accomplish & the workflows they know to accomplish them.
For developers, Linux is often worth switching to because so many dev tools have first-class Linux support, or are Linux-only. Most other domains aren't like that.
Really, GNU/Linux should be the default. People have this impression that Windows and MacOS is for normal people but GNU/Linux is a strange specialized OS for techies, but really, it's the opposite. The average person really just needs to be able to launch a browser (which gets you email, social media, cloud storage, document editing/management, whatever else). GNU/Linux is perfectly fine for that, and may even be the most sensible solution.
It's actually Windows and MacOS that are the "specialist" operating systems - when you really need to use specialized software like Photoshop, Logic Pro, or whatever else, and when the Linux/browser alternatives aren't good enough for you.
I would disagree. The main issue is basic driver incompatibility and in depth, dev-level debugging required when something goes wrong rather than just visiting the Apple or Microsoft forum.
I will say this is less of an issue than it was 10 years ago, but it’s certainly not a non-issue. If you’re average Joe looking to switch this is a huge impediment.
I note that Windows users and nerds are generally much more open to just helping people overcome whatever problem they're having in the simplest and easiest way possible.
Linux users, and neckbeards in particular, on the other hand are generally more concerned about ordering people having problems to do things the One True Way(tm). This condescending attitude is by far the thing that holds back wider Linux adoption the most; most people don't have time to be talked down by some neckbeard when Windows users will sympathize and happily lend a hand.
I can't and won't speak to MacOS users because MacOS, within the confines of the One Apple Way(tm), has always Just Worked(tm) which is by far its strongest selling point.
No one cares but nerds. Normal people just want to get work done.
Nothing in this article explains how they could do that better with Linux. How it would save them time. How it would be easier. It’s entirely focused on how they could replace things they do today with a (possibly worse) equivalent program.
Windows is “free“ to people because it comes with the computer. Unless the software is exclusive to the Mac it’s available on Windows. Most OSS included.
People switch to Mac because it works better with their iPhone. Or because they want to use Logic Pro. Or they want to develop for the iPhone.
People switch to Windows because it has way way more software than anything else. It’s where all gaming outside of consoles is. The hardware is cheaper than a Mac and there are way more options.
Linux has less software people want. Far far fewer hardware options (I mean pre-built machines sold at normal stores). If Linux meant you could save $500 on a computer it might be interesting. But when you can buy a full windows laptop for $250 bucks you’re gonna have a hard time making that argument. The only benefits people tend to tout are intangibles like freedom and control, in exchange for giving up everything you’re used to and fewer software choices.
It’s like arguing that you’re selling the greenest car. That’s nice. And some people will appreciate that. But a lot of people won’t care at all. And if that’s the only argument you have you’re not gonna sell a lot of them.
You need an article on why Linux will make your life so much easier and you just haven’t heard about it before. Proprietary software is not the number one thing holding people back. The number one thing holding people back is they’ve never been given a reason that appeals to them for why they should consider switching.
Which most users don't even understand: "What do you mean I don't have freedom if I use Mac/Windows? So what if you can change the source code, I'm not a programmer"
“If you give up everything you were used to and learn something completely new that may not be quite as good for you as what you have and no one you know can help you with then in five years you might not be forced to do the thing you weren’t going to do anyway!” is not a winning argument.
You have to argue things that help them, NOW. If arguments about what’s better in the future worked everyone would have much much bigger savings accounts.
I had no idea chromebooks were like that.
Except, the new version of the OS included a new version of the kernel. This version of the kernel had a long standing bug that prevented the kernel booting on my CPU/motherboard combination.
I ended up switching to Windows which just continued to work, and be updated, for years until I replaced the computer with an Intel NUC. Which I also couldn't install Linux on because there was no driver support.
The one Linux feature I miss on other OSes isn't even a Linux feature, it's NixOS's declarative configuration. Nothing to do with the Linux kernel or the GNU userspace CLI tools or glibc, just the ability to manage a system and user(s) with a version-controlled configuration.
my in-laws never use their tech for anything outside of basic word docs or web browsing, but they're fancy so they need to have a Macbook. Same reason they have a Lexus but rarely take trips outside of basic runs into town.
And say what you will about marketing, they're all reliable gear. Something to be said for "buy once, cry once", and then not thinking about it again.
The article gets so close to talking about some of the real problems (network effect, notably on messaging and social apps), but then skirts around the issue rather than tackling it head-on, talking about how to bridge iMessage into other workflows in ways Apple may well shut down (see Beeper) rather than discussing the difficult, but possible, work of encouraging a friend group to use plenty-viable alternatives (for example, even without going into the FOSS space like we could/arguably-should, even Discord is less locked-up than iMessage, and is a trivial lift to get folks to move over to).
After he learned he didn't have to install a printer driver but could just print (and scan), he asked me why I didn't tell him earlier.
For CS people, it's not that hard to switch and understand the tradeoffs, especially because they will have the skills to know & handle the obstacles. The vast majority of lusers will not... they will spend money to save time (yes folks... save their time) to do what they want and need to do.
This reminded me of what Ernie Ball said at some linux trade show many moons ago...
"I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,' We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly.
"It's just software. You have to figure out what you need to do within your organization and then get the right stuff for that. And we're not a backwards organization. We're progressive; we've won communications and design awards...The fact that I'm not sending my e-mail through Outlook doesn't hinder us. It's just kind of funny. I'm speaking to a standing-room-only audience at a major technology show because I use a different piece of software--that's hysterical."
I know you can get around it, but that's a hell of a 20-year-old quote in the face of Windows 11 dropping support for so many PCs
Really?
> Again, we've done the research. The profits aren't there -- very few Linux users are willing to pay for commercial software.
> And the cost of entry is still high because of the fragmented Linux landscape.
> The Linux world has to change before commercial software will have reason to invest in Linux ports.
> And we haven't seen much real change in the Linux market in several years.
https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-discussio...
1. People who use Adobe can't use Linux
2. People who do use Linux aren't willing to pay for Adobe because they don't use Adobe
3. Adobe doesn't see profit in Linux
FWIW, I do appreciate: "they don't need to do that as long as Windows doesn't get so bad that you stop using Adobe products because of it", and I sadly appreciate that maybe that market is pretty small (and so far doesn't even include me); but like, the logic for why I could see Apple or Google building their own OS in such a situation somehow stands: Adobe absolutely gets burned by Apple and has most of the same benefits to be had as Google for moving to a self-controlled vertical stack.
Adobe on macOS is not really native. It is barely usable bloatware. I only use it when I really need to explicitly collaborate on some Indesign thing now. For anything else it is Affinity.
There is no incentive for these to be fixed by the community hence people will not switch.
For smartphones where Google fixed them, people adopted overnight.
In data centers where companies have the incentive to fix hardware support of raid controllers etc, and UI is not important, we also saw complete dominance.
hw support? what kind of hardware? first party support for gaming accessories is far from great, but unless you want to do macros on your gaming hardware with wayland, the rest for a regular user is pretty much fully covered
Imagine if a cellphone required you to open a terminal to configure your touchscreen or the sleep states.
It’s that bad for a newbie.
Neither windows or android have ever required me to use terminal to set them up.
Well I do, the first thing I'm running on a fresh Windows is a Windows debloater script so ironically I'm using the terminal faster after setup on Windows compared to something like PopOs.
It's funny since it's the kind of manual setup you had to do 10 years ago for Linux distributions and now it's the opposite.
+ if you are not using winget or wingetui you are missing out
secondly - microsoft has been removing stuff from the control panel and either moving it to registry only or to the new settings on a random place for quite some time now and figuring out where some items went can be painful
enabling s3 sleep? was only in registry for a while defering windows feature updates/new windows versions? gpo or registry - is that any better than a command line? autoreboots same thing and many others
also when huge features updates came out couple years ago, some of my settings got reset, so having a script that can return my pc to a desired state is prefferable to fiding all those settings again
GPUs are still in the "check some site if it works before you buy" territory and I hear nvidia is stil kinda adversarial.
The second biggest one is tablets and 2 in 1 laptops. It's a full computer form factor that has piss poor support, albeit you still get a linux subsystem with win11 and chromeOS.
On minor stuff, trackpads aren't great. TBF Apple set the bar so high all other platform become disappointing, but it should be mentionned.
Doing software decoding is just silly waste of electricity.
I know, you can achieve it, in some browser, but not the other, may be.
Even in spite of the infamous schizophrenia that's been evident in Explorer since Windows 8 and 10, it's still more consistent and reliable than Linux DEs.
Hardware support, maybe for some things, but again, Linux supports old hardware far better in my experience.
I think it's mostly that Windows is the de facto business standard, and for home people just buy what they already know.
This is the crux of it: linux really shines for older paradigms and protocols. It makes it a great OS if what you're doing was cuting edge decades ago.
Another thread mentions printing. Use devs rely on core tools day day out thare often older than us. Most people got used to computers before touch, and have absolutely not need for a touch screen, etc.
Same for UI really.
But if you'te target is something forming right now, or bringing new paradigms (let's say VR games), going linux will mean you either create everything you need for yourself almost on your own, or move to something else (probably Windows)
1) Commercial inertia
Everything from dominant industry software, to decades-old OEM hardware deals that have seen Windows/Apple become synonymous with the public's computing experience across a long time, to actual commercial partnerships (e.g. Microsoft and Adobe aren't just happily distant buddies, they're actively working together), and more.
2) Individual inertia
For example, the standard tendency of a user to come from a Windows world into a new system, and expect all things to be as Windows. Also, as per that common refrain from some technical toe-dippers - "I try Linux once-in-a-while, and it once did a bad thing, so, ..." - an outsider's shortcomings tend to live on in peoples memories, even though they may have been fixed or improved many years ago now.
There are many reasons why Linux is not popular, but the over reliance on commandline is a obvious one I rarely hear people mention.
Even when it's cheap enough to not switch, but simply fire up a second computer for the cost of some single gaming peripherals.
But this is all why it might seem impossible. The reality is most people don't even want to switch, and the amount that don't even know they could if they wanted to is probably a lot higher than this crowd likely realizes. I do call center work that isn't tech specifically, but we do help with our website. You think people know what a "browser" or an "address bar" is, let alone an operating system (or which one they're using)?
There were breaking changes to Python, and to WxPython which made all of the GUI forms break, and I couldn't figure out how to fix it. This has personally turned me against Python, which seems to have a culture of moving fast and breaking things, without regard to the price users pay.
The Windows executable distribution works, and is likely to work for the next decade. There's a stability to the Win32 API and their focus on backward compatibility that Linux just can't match.
Last I've tried variable refresh rate (Gsync) support was all over the place. Wayland, Xorg, GNOME, different DEs, buy AMD instead etc. Endless googling and searching forums.
I just _want to use it_ but it's nowhere near a hassle-free ('just works' on Windows) experience.
And maybe it's an enthusiast level thing but I also care about GPU/CPU undervolting which is once again is an almost non-existent field in Linux.
And on top of that I always end up with an analysis paralysis. Which DE? Which distro? Which package manager? Too many variables and one thing that works with Ubuntu and GNOME won't work with Arch and KDE. Especially if you are searching around the internet for an X answer.
I use Linux at work but that's more than enough for me lol.
Linux is good for certain type of people but certainly not for everyone imo. To me it feels like you either have to be a really dedicated hardcore user who is willing to tinker and spend hours to solve problems OR a very basic user (you only use a web browser and LibreOffice). Everything in between is a mess.
I mostly feel these headaches are worthwhile in exchange for the freedom and other (mainly severely technical) perks I enjoy about the ecosystem. I can't speak for windows, but coming from macOS, calling the price paid for these perks today steep would still be an understatement to me.
If OEMs preinstalled Linux with Cinnamon Desktop or whatever on their PCs and marketed those PCs front and center, put them out on display at Wal-Mart and Best Buy, there would probably be some acceptance among consumers. But that would violate Windows licensing contracts so they don't.
Even people using mobile devices don't see servers. They see the UI of their phones and tablets. Same for voice enabled devices: the UI is the voice, the server is hidden.
Disclaimer: I use Debian with GNOME.
Most people spend more time on their phone than their desktop/laptop, if they even have one.
Note, smartphones are computers.
In as much as there was ever a choice, it has been made: most people deploying computing machinery anywhere in the world use Linux. Sure, many people still use non-Linux desktops for their office or work-from-home jobs, but the choice has become largely irrelevant, because all those non-Linux machines still need to speak internet, and therefore be interoperable with Linux networking.
By adhering to Linux for my personal use, I have acquired a very marketable level of technical mastery. If other people don't want to use Linux, it just means less competition for my skills :)
Nowadays the vast majority of the blocking issues are outdated and user friendly distributions are fine for non technical users.
Windows also regressed quite a bit in the last decade as well which definitely helps when comparing.
I give desktop Linux a try every few years to see where it is at. Copy and paste alone makes me so mad with Linux that even that single factor would make me drop it - bearing in mind that copy and paste is something I do every few minutes it's not OK for it to totally suck. If Linux really cared about user experience then I should at the barest minimum be able to use Windows and Mac copy/paste keys without even thinking about it.
It should be said that Windows has pretty bad user consistency as well. Microsoft update the Windows UI but elements from many generations ago seem to pop up everywhere.
Because being a generalist operating system built by volunteers and supposed to support tens of thousands of hardware combinations and use cases is exactly the same as being a multi billion company building your own hardware and software on top of it, right?
However with so much moved to the web one of the traditional barriers has fallen.
If you aren't easy with the console, stick to Windows/Apple.
* Lack of consistency. Everything looks and acts different, and some DEs in particular are very religious.
* Lack of reliability. I can't keep count of how many Linux installs I've killed by doing something as mundane as just running updates. Just no, I need this stuff to work every day.
* Religious zealotry. Look, I don't care about the F or O in FOSS to the extent Linux neckbeards demand of me. I use computers to get stuff done, and Windows lets me get stuff done.