This was written about 8 years ago. Do you feel the Linux landscape has objectively improved? Why? Why not?
Wow, 2015. Back when they had to hire actual humans to write bullshit like that.
In 2023 an AI could produce lesser bs than this article.
Why Isn't Linux Mainstream? 5 Flaws That Need Fixing
With that, the author implies that it's of utmost importance to make Linux mainstream. Is it? I don't know and I'm not assuming.
- The Landscape Evolves Too Quickly
Not a flaw.
For example, look at the biggest name in desktop Linux: Ubuntu. They release a new version every six months where each version is named after the year and month of release (e.g. 14.10, 15.04, 15.10, etc). Contrast that with Windows (every 3-5 years) and OS X (every 1-2 years).
LTS. Debian Stable.
Stopped reading here because the author is clearly ignorant on what he's talking about.
Windows (every 3-5 years)
Apparently not familiar with Windows Service Packs or the multitude of Win10 OS Release versions.
Yup, as is also evidenced by this part: "What about all of the distros unrelated to Ubuntu? You've got the well-known names like Debian…"
stop linking blogspam
Shit site. Would not let me view it due to not being able to fingerprint me
Brace for a hot take.
Most of these points are completely void, not because Linux is the bestest ever, but because the domination of proprietary systems has conditioned most users to comply to a lesser image of "personal computing".
Things evolve too quickly? Sorry, we have to stay on top on security updates, new standards, hardware support, new features and ways of working - the world is changing, and our tools follow. It's not a problem, but a natural consequence of progress. The fact that so many people view this as a source of pain in their personal computing is a problem.
Things break? Well too bad, it's tech - it's supposed to break. And we a are supposed to be able to fix it. If most users think that fixing tech is "black magic" - that is a VERY big problem.
Way too many choices? No - you just don't know what you need. It's silly to expect a Windows or an OSX user to make an informed choice when it comes to software, because they had these choices picked out for them all their life by the proprietor. An abundance of options is never a problem - our inability to orient ourselves among them is.
TLDR: proprietary computing has normalized a lot of brain-dead practices and expectations, so we crave silly and shiny while turning away from smart and pragmatic. We need better computer literacy, better education and better default computing for everyone.
it's impossible to keep up with all of the changes
Literally not true. It's all handled for you. You could use a stable system like Debian or Gentoo for years without updating or only getting security patches or use a rolling system and get all the updates easily. No one says you've gotta reinstall your system all the time. Every distro has some way to keep up with updates. It's not like you've gotta compile every program yourself and pull the git repo every few days or reinstall your OS every year.
Way Too Many Choices
Linux's biggest obstacle is the paradox of choice
If you are scared of the options available for Linux, you are ignorant. It's understandable some people get anxiety when presented with too many equal options, but the thing is they have to be equal options. This is not the case in the Linux world. The options are all different. You as a user will want different things than other users. You may not have thought about what you want, but you do have wants. You have an idea of how you want to use your computer. It's a matter of doing a Google search to find what option provides your choice. It's not like choosing between 5 ice cream flavors you all like; it's like choosing what to eat between ice cream, vomit, feces, a rock, and a block of wood. There's a clear right choice. If you really believe that there are an overwhelming amount of choices of Linux, you are simply ignorant of the most basic UX differences. Like, you haven't even tried to compare. You just heard "there are 2 things" and panicked.
I'm really tired of this stupid myth of too much fragmentation in Linux that gets passed around. There's a reason for the fragmentation; it's not arbitrary, so it doesn't hurt to have it. We're talking bare minimum looking stuff up or asking a question.
Why? Because Linux is high maintenance.
Only true if you mess with stuff. If you're a newcomer and just want stuff to work. Pick some common, stable OS like Ubuntu, use flatpaks or snaps, and it will just work.
I did nothing out of the ordinary – yet somehow it ended up breaking my desktop. The result? Neither Unity nor Gnome worked properly, so I went back to Windows to cool off… and haven't been back to Linux since.
Ah okay, this article was written nearly a decade ago. That checks out. There were several significant improvements to Linux around 5 years ago or so.
But also, "nothing out of the ordinary?" Installing a totally new desktop environment is "nothing out of the ordinary?" It's something you can't even do on Mac and Windows!
Software Quality Is Mostly Sub-Par
Just untrue. There are tons of fantastic FOSS apps out there with better UX than I get even from proprietary apps. Another myth that has 0 Google searching behind it. I mean look at the GNOME apps. They're all really really good for the most part.
This probably also comes from the age of the article too. A lot of that came like 5 or so years ago. There were some big pushes.
There are some important proprietary apps that are unavailable with no great alternatives like Photoshop, that's fair, but for FOSS apps that are just trying to do what they want to do, there's some with great UI.
It’s understandable some people get anxiety when presented with too many equal options, but the thing is they have to be equal options
No, they absolutely don't. That's not what the psychology says at all. They merely have to be difficult for you to distinguish at a quick glance. The fact that there are right and wrong answers for each person, while identifying what those right and wrong answers are is difficult is exactly the problem.
The idea that "it's obvious; you're not trying" isn't just laughable horseshit. It's also obscenely disrespectful. Because the people making the comments obviously don't know, and many of them have actually tried. The differences are way deeper than surface level.
difficult for you to distinguish at a quick glance
That's what I'm saying though. You're just mincing words. If you look at GNOME and then look at KDE, you're not going to see very many similarities. The choices are clear.
They're going for drastically different things. So yeah, it's obvious; they're not trying. They haven't done a single search.
No, the choices are absolutely not clear in any way. The literal only way to learn the differences in function is to use them.
No, the choices are absolutely not clear in any way
That's a ridiculous thing to say. You're being disingenuous.
I'm absolutely not. You're projecting your experience onto people who don't have it.
The idea that the average user can learn literally anything about how an OS works from a screenshot of a desktop or a table of features that means nothing to them is delusional. They have no frame of reference for any of it. It's completely and utterly meaningless.
So… basically it is not popular because it's Linux
Perhaps a better question is: asking why Apple isn't mainstream?
Linux almost always needs to be installed, whereas Apple is plug n' play. Plus Linux has a reputation of being much more complicated than it actually is.
The disparity between the proportion of iMac sales vs the people who could afford an iMac is rather enormous, but I have this idea that for iPhones and Androids, this is reversed.
I find that conundrum, assuming it's true, kinda interesting.
I think that 5 flaws are actually the 5 advantages of linux. Aren’t they?
deleted by creator
Yes? My question refers to exactly that.
Omg lol. Durr I didn't read your question, just sort of got mad that it was old news.
Old article, yeah, but it still holds true to this day, the author is a moron who blames Linux for poor adoption when it’s actually OEM’s that mostly keep it held back.
Your grandmother isn’t going to uninstall Windows and install Linux. But your grandmother will also have no idea that Chromebooks run Linux when they buy a cheap browser and email machine.
Once PC OEMs properly embrace the Linux desktop environment with full hardware support, then you will see the market start to shift. It’s very little to do with Linux and so much to do with businesses and OEMs being willing to sell and support it.
Steam Deck (and Valve's contributions to Proton etc) have helped push up Linux Gaming somewhat notably. I'm wondering if the fall of Unity and increased interest in FOSS engines like Godot might also help push things in that direction. Certainly shit like DirectX was pretty directly harmful to non-windows platforms
There are 6 Windows machines in my family and 11 Linux machines. Generously including the Androids for the purpose of statistics. Not counting the virtual machines.
Both systems can be called mainstream, I guess.
I've summarised the article as best I could: "Waaaah, waaaah, waaaah!"
This is an article from 2015!!!
Read again, friend. That's exactly why I asked the question.
