I love Linux, don't get me wrong, and I have used desktop versions of Mint and Arch and Ubuntu and Zorin and Pop! and OpenSuSE and Parrot and Kali and a bunch of other small ones way back in the day (currently I have Mint and Zorin on a side laptop), and both rackmount servers in my bathroom are running Ubuntu...
But I still use a Windows desktop for gaming and a MacOS laptop for dev work as my main drivers.
I actually think that if OEMs would put it on hardware they sold at BestBuy it'd sell like hotcakes, but that level of support is never going to happen, and without the ability for them to bring it to GeekSquad and have them either fix it or RMA it, Linux is never going to be "right" for the average person.
Safer files? Tell that to the BTRFS RAID guys.. MacOS actually handles this the best these days imho due to time machine (which does incremental backups). A lot of Linux Distro's don't even ship with an easy to use backup system, or anything as nice as Time Machine. Microsoft is literally at the point it is auto-recovering the OS when a fault happens.
Fast and smooth? Apple beat Linux and Microsoft with accelerated desktop stuff by ages. Also, on my NUC 11 Enthusiast, I couldn't even get the ARC working.. Accellerated video is still somewhat iffy in some scenarios on Linux it seems.
Flexability? Yeah.. Too much flexibility. We've got so many distro's which are basically just copies of other ones. And I'm still looking for an easy, low risk alternative to Magnet in MacOS (which kills PowerToys FancyZones or the KDE Tiling stuff)
That being said, if there was GOOD android integration baked in, and Android App store baked in, it would actually make a huge difference I think. Because thats the competition..
Waydroid still has some major issues unfortunately.
This would bring in lots of high quality apps (including ones missing like Whatsapp or Messenger), and ultimately do what Steam for Linux did for Linux Gaming.
One of the biggest things I'd point out for security is that unless effort is made to ensure people are upgrading, more systems on Linux is going to mean more versions of the kernel being on more machines.
It will result in a lot more machines running versions that have known exploits open against them so malware will become easier to propagate on Linux in general.
Yes... but also extremely no. Superficially you are right, but a lot of the arguments of why many new distros are created is just because of human nature. This covers everything from infighting over inane issues to more pragmatic reasons. A lot of them, probably even a majority, don't provide enough actual differentiators to be able to honestly claim that it is because of different needs. In the end it all boils down to the fact that people can just create a new distro when they feel like it.
Which is a strength in one way, but not with regard to fragmentation.
Having used Mint on my laptop for the last few months, I can say I have had to do far less technical meddling with the OS to get it to work correctly than I did with Windows 11. I have also been able to totally resolve all issues encountered (1 issue) which I didn't have the time or expertise to do with my Windows OS. It's refreshing not having to work with a system that feels like a broken mess I'm too incompetent to fix.
As a dual booter such a dumb take. Mac and Windows are much easier for the masses. Have to debug stuff with Linux is not something the average wants to do or even can do. Not to mention the biggest problem, software compatibility. Also the last part gave me a chuckle. "Elderly people who are not familiar with advanced technology and prefer clean and simple computer usage." Are you fucking kidding me? Mac is the way to go for old people IMO.
Most people cannot install or debug windows. For most people the biggest issue is their support network. My father-in-law and my wife run Linux and have done so for 20 years. They are not technical and it works just fine. My mom uses Windows and I have not suggested Linux because I am not local. She needs a local support network. I spend as much time or more supporting her.
The worst barrier is explicit hardware compatibility not software. Most hardware works but you never know. For software most things have FOSS eqyivalents. If you actually want to run commercial software then sure Windows or whatever platform it runs on.
Debug, you say? Windows is way harder to keep running than Linux. At least an immutable distro like UBlue. You don’t need to debug anything. Just get it running, get some shit installed over the top, and it will auto update forever. I’ve got lots of relatives living comfortably that way for years now. If they were running Windows, it would be a support call every week and a fresh install every 2 years.
Now, Mac I’ll grant you. A Mac will also just keep running forever. But you can run nearly every Windows game on Linux and almost none of them on Mac. And Mac requires special hardware.
I put my boomers on Fedora with GNOME a couple years ago and there hasn't been any issues with that. Especially now that a lot of stuff that used to be desktop apps has moved to the browser, it's more viable than ever.
I have set up a Linux computer for my dad just this week. As the others are saying the biggest hurdle is support. Mostly the part where reliable automated update mechanisms don't exist. The system I created has a WM & a panel and it's even simpler than chrome OS, but here is no way my dad could deal with a message, where apt would ask him, if he wanted to update to the maintainer's grub version. Making an update script is very easy, but whether you use Debian stable, Ubuntu or Arch eventually some kind of intervention is going to be required beyond just typing sudo passwords..
Though truth to be told Windows has a lot of garbage problems (perhaps even more than L) as well, it's just people have gotten used to them after 20 years of NT on desktop. On Linux at least most common problems can be solved without reinstalling the OS, on Windows the rot feels like a built in planned obsolescence sometimes, because there are many that just update their PCs instead of ever reinstalling Windows.
When a Linux desktop environment breaks, it breaks hard. I’ve lost whole days of work debugging stupid nonsense like where I couldn’t get past the login screen without switching from GDM to LightDM, or not being able to open settings in Gnome until I realized that it was a proprietary display driver issue, or had a previously working secondary display just switch to rendering a distorted image. And these are things that would happen after installing routine updates that the OS prompted! The investigations and fixes were just filled with deep dives into configuration files and all sorts of CLI shenanigans. Searching for solutions brought up inapplicable suggestions from 6 distro versions ago.
Windows and MacOS certainly have their issues but they’ve never broken like that for me. I still use Linux on my work machine but anecdotally speaking I don’t think it’ll ever be daily-driver ready for “most people.”
The Distros mentioned in the article are meant to be used without changing anything else..
If you meant Arch, I agree with your concern. But Arch isn't designed for beginners in the first place. It was designed to be built.
Any operating system would break if you tinking too much about how it was built. In Windows, if you mess with regedit too much, it'll start to misbehave or worse, Blue Screen..
I love my Mint laptop and I find it plausible that someone who just does “the basics” could get by with a usability-focused distro.
In my experience, the problem is that not a lot of people really are just sticking to basics on their PC anymore. The truly “just browsing and email” users just use their phone. Someone with a PC is doing something—gaming, photo editing/digital art, audio production, long form writing—where they have a proprietary app they like. Either that, or they’re using it for work and have a company controlled, fully Office 365’d PC.
Linux got usable enough for basic users, but basic users left PCs behind.
all 42 comments