Slashdot Mirror
Why Aren't People Abandoning Windows For Linux? (slashgear.com)
- Updates on Linux are fast and "rarely call for a restart" -- and are also more complete. "Updates are typically downloaded through a 'Software Updater' application that not only checks for operating system patches, but also includes updates for the programs that you've installed from the repository."
- Windows "tries to serve a variety of markets...cramming in a scattered array of features" -- and along those lines, that Microsoft "has gradually implemented monetization schemes and methods for extracting user data." And yet you're still paying for that operating system, while Linux is less bloated and "free forever."
- "Because less people use Linux, the platform is less targeted by malware and tends to be more secure than Windows"
The article also touches on a few other points (including battery life), and predicts that problems with Windows are "bound to get worse over time and will only present more of a case for making the switch to Linux."
Long-time Slashdot reader shanen shared the article, along with some new thoughts on why people really stay with Windows:
I think the main "excuse" is the perception of reliability, which is really laughable if you've actually read the EULA. Microsoft certainly doesn't have to help anyone at all. I would argue that Windows support is neither a bug nor a feature, but just a marketing ploy.
Their original submission suggests that maybe Linux needs to buttress the perception of its reliability with a better financial model -- possibly through a new kind of crowd funding which could also be extended to all open source software, or even to journalism).
It does not come 'free' with the PC/Laptop. Even though they will need to pay eventually (upgrades/subscriptions) people still see it as free.
The OS doesn't really mean anything at all. The OS only exists to run software which solves specific problems to get jobs done. On paper Linux looks like, but in the real world, it just consistently falls short for desktop usage. It does GREAT in the server world, due to the reliability and performance, but these are less of a concern on the desktop.
On the desktop, we need the ability to accomplish tasks by individuals that are not computer experts and dont have experts sitting around them constantly to ask questions to. Having done tech support in a small business of people who are not tech savvy, routinely being asked how to dial an international phone number, or reply to an email, or send a FAX, these are not tasks that the Linux ecosystem are suited for.
Linux is built for tech savvy people by tech savvy people. Linux is chock full of software engineers, but lacks UX engineers in all aspects of the ecosystem.
Lots of distributions. Lots of ways of doing things. Systemd or not. rpm or dpkg or portage or one of the other dozen or so package managers. Lots of old documentation hanging around telling you to do things that don't work any more. Binary drivers or not. X11 or Wayland. GNOME or KDE or neither.
Putting aside the argument of wasted effort, it's just confusing for the average user. Even those of us who are capable of navigating these waters may easily grow tired of the hassle.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
For the vast majority of users windows works well enough. And their PC / Laptop came with windows.
So there is no incentive to change.
The public just buys what the major tech marketing machines are selling. Very few even know there is an option and why it matters.
;)
Just my 2 cents
It's got nothing to do with systemd. Most users don't know or care if the system is running systemd or init. It's only an important topic for system admins.
The reason that people are not abandoning Windows for Linux is pretty simple. Windows is a much better, and supported, general purpose operating system for the desktop. It has more tools for doing general office work, desktop publishing, and video editing that Linux has. This is just the nature of the beast.
But that doesn't make Linux useless for the desktop. I've noticed that Linux desktops tend to occupy more specialist niches. An this is where the Linux desktop shines. You can completely customize it for the individual task. The fact that it comes with tools to do this out of the box is a bonus.
Severs is a different story. Outside of active directory I really can't think of many things that Windows Server outshines Linux on. Linux simple makes a far better general purpose server than Window Server does. Infact if it wasn't for AD I doubt that Windows Server would have the presents it does.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Exactly. Until any version of Linux can run Photoshop or Capture One (or as someone below said, AutoCAD), or any other mainstream software which people use on a regular basis, people are not going to use it, even if it's free.
People want to either insert a disc or download the software and get it to work. The first time.
Until this massive obstacle is removed, Linux will be relegated to its insignificance in the personal computer market.
Linux is wonderful for sure.
But it's basic issue with toppling Windows dominance over the desktop is Apps. Plain and simple.
Until developers start pushing out major Apps for Linux, it's going to remain in the shadows, running all the backend stuff like it always has. Linux simply has no hope on the desktop until it gets the App support from major companies, like Windows enjoys now.
Which leads to the second problem for Linux. Fragmentation and poor compatibility from distro to distro. There's just no standard for developers to follow, that would ensure their stuff will run as desired on any given Linux desktop. There's ton of different UIs, different display servers, different system tools, different locations for common stuff. Even the basic libraries installed on any given Linux desktop are rarely the same as they are for another one. Different versions of just about everything plagues Linux's viability for big corporation's developers.
Even Steam can be a bit of a chore to get working properly on a Linux desktop install. You gotta make sure the right libraries are in. And even when you get it working, there's absolutely no guarantee any of your games will work. They might. They might not. Windows does not suffer from this issue. You buy a piece of software/game for Windows. It will work. Period.
Don't get me wrong, Linux's various distros have come a long way in addressing compatibility and dependency issues for their software repositories. But, from my view, it's still too much of a disaster for big corps to make the investment in developing their big App suites for Linux.
Once big name corps, like Adobe and Microsoft for example, start pushing out Linux versions of their flagship products, Linux will have arrived. But until then... we're stuck with Windows.
Technology is only as reliable as the understanding of the user using it.
Windows makes a BFD of updating your computer or scanning for mal ware.
Ironically the fact that updates are a big deal on Windows machines makes people aware of them. They are aware when one exists and if they haven't done it. This intrusiveness gives you the sense that as long as you stay updated Microsoft will keep your machine happy and healthy.
Linus doesn't provide that feeling.
You are never really aware if the "kernel" (scary) is upt to date or what that means or how to tell.
So it's daunting.
A linux distro with a security CLippy would give people more confidence something was out there keeping them safe and healthy
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If that abomination known as Windows 8 couldn't drive users to Linux, don't kid yourself that a little issues like end-of-support lifetime for a very popular version of Windows will do the trick. Remember, we've already gone through this with Windows XP. Experience tells us that most home users will just keep using Windows 7 until their PC dies, while corporations still not ready to switch will pay extra for longer support.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Arguably, DFS-R is better than any of the Linux alternatives for replication of data between offices.
Biggest reason on the desktop is the same as it was 15 years ago: people like Outlook,
While the parent is funny, it does raise a good point.
Systemd is a great example of the idiotic religious-level infighting that happens constantly between linux "enthusiasts".
Do you know what impact Systemd has to the average user? Fat. Fuck. All.
Do you know what DOES have impact on the average user? A bunch of nerds getting into screaming matches with each other over ultimately pointless details.
People get their panties in a twist over the most bloody idiotic things, like colour schemes and font choices. Meanwhile people who just want something that works throw their hands up and nope over to something that will give them less perceived headaches.
Like it or not, every single one of us represents the image of Linux, and our collective inability to see things with a little perspective is just one of many reasons how people are being actively pushed away from trying linux.
I have been a Linux user for many years with quite a few different distros and I have to agree with the other guy. I am running Xubuntu right now and nothing 'just works'. A lot of the programs I want to use don't have documentation. Sometimes you have to read the source code even to know what the program is for. In general Linux program documentation is just utter rubbish compared to most Windows programs. They almost always assume that you have the technical expertise of someone who writes compilers for a living.
Very few program installers bother to add menu or desktop launcher entries and it is by no means easy to do that manually. Many programs are from somewhat to very out of date if you try to just do an 'apt install x' and Ubuntu flavours have one of the best software repositories in the Linux world. Really only Arch Linux can compete. So you have to google the program and hope they have a ppa and many don't and even when they do they are sometimes out of date and when you try to install an out of date ppa it screws up the entire software installation system until you fix the problem which is by no means easy or straightforward.
Installing programs on Linux is often like wrestling an alligator naked. It's almost always a massive massive struggle and yes it isn't that unusual for you to be expected to compile from source and without any instructions on how to do so. Sometimes you get lucky and there is a Snap or Appimage or Flatpack which makes the installation more like Windows, sort of automagical when it works which it doesn't always. Frequently such packages cause problems when you actually try to run the program because the program was not originally written with that sort of installation in mind or because the installer hasn't been updated for 3 years.
Overall I like Linux better than Windows, but that is only because Windows sucks so very very badly because Microsoft is one of the worst software companies on the planet. But Windows at least has consistent single click installs that really do almost always just work and when someone bothers to write a Windows program they nearly always at least tell you what the program is supposed to do and very very often even tell you how to install and run it. I hate to say this but I think at least some people who love Linux love it because it is so difficult to use. I think it's kind of an ego thing. Like they want to feel superior to the retardo Window users who would not have a chance in hell of running even the easiest 'desktop' Linux distro. It makes some people feel so very elite, but that's not what an operating system is for.
After the Windows 10 OS-as-Adware debacle I decided to finally make a serious effort at doing everything except gaming in Linux, but the people who write Linux software don't make that easy. So many of them are like, "Uh yeah I wrote this free program (it's free so stfu and don't complain!), but I don't give even the slightest fuck if even a single person besides myself ever uses it. Really. I. Don't. Care! So go read my uncommented source code with 100 different source files if you want to know how to use it or how to install it (compile from source baby!) or even what it is actually for. If you want to know why I wrote it you can go fuck yourself. No really. Go buy commercial software if you don't like it. Oh there is almost never any commercial software for Linux? Then go run Windows if you want documentation." That last bit is my point. Windows developers usually write docs or even manuals (Manuals OMG!).
I have spent weeks trying to figure out how to compile from source a linux web server I really would like to use, but I can't for the life of me figure it out. It is a massive puzzle or mystery. And no there isn't a binary available. So I had to just give up. There is however a Windows version available and I am pretty sure installing *that* version of the server would be a piece of cake. I have a Linux server though so that doesn't help me. It is open source and I have the source code so I could presum
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
A myth. It is well known that Linux users are generally willing to pay more than average for game titles. I do not doubt that Linux users also earn more on average.
A vanishingly small minority of Linux users refuse to ever pay for software. Contrast this with the mass hordes of Windows users who habitually steal their software, every last bit of it.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
anyone with an IQ of 120 or less is going to have very serious problems installing and using it and that means most of our species.
I've got a USB stick in a drawer with a Kubuntu install on it. Plug it in, boot up, click "install", and it does it in about 10 minutes. If that's scary, you can click the other tile and just run it off the USB stick. It's like 85% as good as installing it.
Making that bootable stick is the hardest part. You have to download a program from the internet, insert a USB stick, and run the installer.
Most of our species aren't doing more on any device than what you listed. And anyone doing more than that is going to have to learn something, even on Windows.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
It's like 85% as good as installing it.
You see it's crap like that that gives Linux a bad name. No it's not 85% as good. It's barely 20% as good. It gives you a nice OS wonderfully out of date with a complicated system to store resident files while at the same time being painfully slow.
Running Linux from a USB stick has it's place but claiming it's 85% of anything even remotely resembling a desktop workspace just serves to reinforce the idea that opensource zealots are just pushing an agenda rather than actually presenting a serious product.
The proposition was "Linux users want free". Which is bullshit. Linux users want freedom, there's a slight difference.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Do you know what impact Systemd has to the average user? Fat. Fuck. All.
This. Absolutely 100% this.
I thought "I wonder what this Systemd thing is that they're arguing about?". I googled and found an answer on a website called linux.com which I assume is authoritative on the subject. It said:
It's tempting to let personalities get in the way. As fun as it is to rant and rail and emit colorful epithets, it's beside the point. For lo so many years Linux was content with SysVInit and BSD init. Then came add-on service managers like the service and chkconfig commands. Which were supposed to make service management easier, but for me were just more things to learn that didn't make the tasks any easier, but rather more cluttery.
...and at that point I sighed and stopped reading. That attempt at an answer sums Linux up for you. You ask a question about a term, and the answer includes at least five more terms you need to look up. If you don't understand why this is a problem, you don't understand what the "average computer user" wants and/or needs.
Or you are me. You buy a modern XPS, the same one that dell sells with linux. Only you buy it with windows because it was cheaper (wtf why was it cheaper?). Then you download the latest ubuntu and put it on a usb stick. It fails to launch, so you google and find out you need to add kernel options in order for the install to work.
So you do that and now you can get it to launch, but it's so slow it's almost unusable. You struggle through that and finally get your install. Then you realize that even though you have 16GB of ram, for some reason it only made a 1gb swap partition and now you can't just close the notebook lid and come back to it later, because what you come back to is a kernel panic.
So now you start over and do a custom format to get the right sized swap partition. This time everything works but 3-4 times you get a kernel panic on resume and you don't know why. More research determines it's because your notebook has a nvidia/intel hybrid graphics and even though nvidia is disabled it's still loading a kernel mod that is causing this instability. So now you are in the terminal and you need to add kernel options that you worked for others until you find the one that works for you.
Now you finally have a working notebook and you think, "This is totally ready for my mom to use". I'll give her the ubuntu install media.