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).
When you buy a Microsoft computer, you agree to use only Microsoft products, including the Windows App Store. Installing Linux is illegal tinkering, and if we catch you doing it, we will delete your data.
- James Kelly, Senior Microsoft PR Executive
...will be year of the Linux desktop. Just a few months to go but it might get there.
60% of educational laptops come with Linux installed by default. Not sure what the Chromebook market is overall, but yeah, you're not going to get many people installing an aftermarket OS on their laptop. What is the point?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I manage a small network for my parents. My dad is a lung doctor, and my mom is a nurse. I cannot get their current EHR system to run under Linux (WINE) and wasn't able to get their previous EHR to run under Linux either. So, for them, I do not save the thousands of dollars that were required to be spent when Windows XP was deprecated, and thousands of dollars again now that Windows 7 is approaching it's end-of-life because I cannot run one critical desktop application under Linux.
We evaluated OpenEHR. It would have required substantial modification to be able to collect, and present, patient data in the manner that would have been useful to their medical office. My software development company could have provided these modifications. As could another, more experienced, software development company that supports OpenEHR. We came to the conclusion that those modifications would be more expensive, and risky, than the commercial licensing, and constant Windows replacement costs. The commercial solution was ready, out of the box, and (not very well, but still) supported.
Until Linux offers better desktop application replacement support, there will be many corporate environments that depend on Windows application which cannot be migrated. WINE is not easy to get everything running under.
The software development company I use relied exclusively on Linux, and open-source software for our developments. However, that does not mean it is a good solution for everyone. Saying "everyone should use Linux" is just as wrong as saying "everyone should use Windows." There are different use cases for different technologies, and attempting to shoehorn everyone into a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't (in my experience) lead to a good outcome.
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.
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.
How many times does it have to be explained before it finally sinks in ?
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more . . . . .
It isn't because we like Microsoft. It isn't because we hate Linux.
( I use both depending on what I'm doing )
We don't abandon Windows for one simple reason:
MANY OF THE APPLICATIONS WE USE DON'T EXIST ON LINUX.
It's the same damn problem VR has. Developers don't want to commit resources to something that so few use while, at the same time, so few will consider it because very little is developed for it.
Some have Linux versions ( like Maya ) but, for the most part, many of the professional / commercial applications I use on a daily basis do not.
There may be some open source alternatives but, none of them quite stack up to their established commercial brethren.
This, and only this, is why ( like it or not ) I am f*cking stuck with Windows.
In case you're curious and you want to go find me some free, open-source version *** that performs as well as any of the following ***, here's my list:
The entire Adobe CC suite
Maya & various Maya Plugins ( covered, it works in Linux too )
Zbrush
Rhinocerous 3D w/ Brazil
Substance Designer / Painter
Keyshot
Capture One Pro
Cubase Pro
Sibelius
Various Musical Instrument Libraries
The driver that ties my synth to the DAW
The day all the above developers create a Linux version, I'll switch.
Until then, Windows it is.
Your an idiot. Linux is Easy to use. Problem is lack of software. I can't use any OS that doesn't have putty.
"Your" either trolling, misinformed or just stupid. https://www.ssh.com/ssh/putty/...
I was recently in a situation where I needed to maintain fields in an Excel spreadsheet based on incoming PDFs.
The Excel spreadsheet was via Dropbox, contained macros and the free online version of Excel could just about handle it. The dropbox app under Linux also permitted LibreOffice access, I just had to be careful updating when macros came into play.
PDFs were more of a problem. Adobe no longer supports the PDF reader for Linux and several of them arrived in a form where Okular (or LibreOffice) simply could not read them. Some of them rendered badly under Okular, some others looked ok but were missing fields. In the end I had to look at the PDFs under Windows to be sure I was seeing what had been written.
I looked up PDF readers for Linux a couple of years back, around the time Adobe dropped Linux support and there was no other reader back then which could read everything. This is of course Adobe's fault, they kept on adding bells and whistles to their PDF specs until it was a monster full of security holes. Adobe's fault but that does not help someone in that situation.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
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.