PDA

View Full Version : Why is Windows still the dominant operating system?



Tom_Carr
March 15th, 2019, 05:04 PM
10 years ago, when I first installed Ubuntu on my desktop at home, I thought that linux would surpass Windows as the most popular operating system within 10 years. That never happened. Why?

QIII
March 15th, 2019, 05:16 PM
On the desktop: Historical inertia and the fact that Windows fulfills the needs of billions of people.

But the desktop is only a tiny fraction of the computing world now. Linux rules the greater world by a factor of at least an order of magnitude in terms of installed systems.

Linux has already won. Linux is the world's dominant operating system by a wide margin.

crip720
March 15th, 2019, 06:24 PM
Most consumer computers are sold with Windows, a lot of people are worried about installing are new OS, us linux users are still surprise that people don't know what or how easy linux is.

RabbitWho
March 16th, 2019, 11:19 AM
People are always banging this drum "it's easy it's easy it's easy" and figuring windows users don't know what is good for them. It's not easy, you are just used to it. People took years to be able to use windows properly and they weren't motivated to learn it, they just had to. Now you expect them to go through all that again when they don't have to? My god everyone would still be on XP if they hadn't been forced to upgrade.
Until a windows user can start using it and find everything immediately and do everything they want to do immediately without having to re-learn something then it won't be popular. UNLESS the marketing people can trick people into thinking it makes them look cool and wealthy, like Apple did

P.S. I use Ubuntu because it makes me look cool.

Tom_Carr
March 17th, 2019, 05:29 PM
People are always banging this drum "it's easy it's easy it's easy" and figuring windows users don't know what is good for them. It's not easy, you are just used to it. People took years to be able to use windows properly and they weren't motivated to learn it, they just had to. Now you expect them to go through all that again when they don't have to? My god everyone would still be on XP if they hadn't been forced to upgrade.
Until a windows user can start using it and find everything immediately and do everything they want to do immediately without having to re-learn something then it won't be popular.

Most of what people do with a computer now is done in a browser. I am typing this now from a little chrome book that sits beside my easy chair. It does 99% of everything I want to do on a computer.

It seems really easy to slip in an ubuntu CD to a home computer and install the basic system and bring up either firefox or chromium. Hook it up to a printer and scanner and learn to use the file manager and libre office and you are doing everything that most people will ever do on a home computer.

That all seems pretty easy to me, but maybe I am wrong.

freemedia2018
March 17th, 2019, 06:08 PM
The educational programs are always oriented to usae windows and office in each school

Indeed, Microsoft and Apple have always made certain that schools sells their software for them. Apple has long benefit from these programmes, https://www.apple.com/education/apple-distinguished-schools/ though Microsoft has more money (private and public) to spend on them. There ought to be some way to discourage this, given that the schools are funded with public money and that there's a conflict of interest-- but it has gone on for so long that no one is going to think of it that way.

In the 1980s, schools were teaching computing and no particular brand of computer was a monopoly-- the market reflected that, as did education. By the 1990s, schools decided to focus on "application training" instead, which not only provided free advertising and helped to build monopolies, it created a generation of people proud to be and self-professed "computer illiterate."

Teaching people computing via application training is like teaching culinary arts by going to a restaurant. Users would be more computer literate if they spent a little more time in the kitchen. It would reduce monopolies and give users more power over their lives. Many everyday people who think they don't spend most of the day with a computer are fooling themselves.

I wouldn't put my degree of love for Canonical anywhere near "fanboy," but if they replaced the Windows and Apple products in schools with Ubuntu, I would be about as happy as Shuttleworth, personally. It would be a leap forward from the status quo. Of course, if you want to understand why that doesn't happen-- it isn't just markets. It's the result of a great deal of lobbying that ought to be banned, or at least curtailed.

jdeca57
March 17th, 2019, 06:59 PM
Well one reason would be that any PC you buy comes with Windows, unless you make an effort. Most people don;t and end up with Windows. Everything is compatible with Windows. Any problems with drivers on hardware X? Well, if you had Windows it would just work, as perfectly as the supplier intended it to be. I guess that's another reason. Some hardware simply doesn't work with Linux. Are suppliers against Linux? No, it's simply a question of market share. People tend to work. What's the computer where you work? Sure, a Windows computer and you don't have any choice about that. So would you prefer to build some experience at home you can use at your work or would you prefer to know next to nothing about the programs you're supposed to use? Office is mandatory for most jobs. A pretty good reason to use Windows and Office at home. I use the term Office for that program because the MS version created that word. Lastly, education. Do you really want your kid to learn and use an OS that won't help him/her in the later life?

Free software is better in many ways. But that doesn't change these facts.

freemedia2018
March 17th, 2019, 07:13 PM
Free software is better in many ways. But that doesn't change these facts.

Those facts are also overstated these days. They're still facts, but the context in which they are relevant is a lot smaller than it used to be-- and free software has made that happen, despite the inertia.

You said it's a result of marketshare-- and the question was more or less, why does Windows have so much of it? In effect you are saying that it has marketshare due to its marketshare. Which isn't untrue, but it's worth mentioning. There are other reasons that marketshare perpetuates itself. Some of those are explained by markets. Others are explained by industry practices that are less than ideal for consumers, or other companies. You mentioned other factors too, but marketshare really shouldnt be the only factor in what determines future marketshare. If it does, it could be monopolistic and we should frown on and discourage that if we want rights or choices as consumers (or users, or developers.) It's not unreasonable to stand for such things, even in the marketplace. You can have such goal without being against commercial interest, but it is decidedly anti-monopoly.

jdeca57
March 17th, 2019, 07:58 PM
...marketshare really shouldnt be the only factor in what determines future marketshare...
Sure. And these big companies may make errors and then they fall. Remember Nokia? They're trying to pick up the pieces of what remains of a monopoly. In the same league IBM could have had it all and while they're still big they don't have a monopoly any more. Management has a lot to do with this and responding to threats. Microsoft has lost hugely on the smartphone market and the desktop is reclining. So a challenger could make them sweat but then it should bring things that you don't get on Windows. And the funny thing is that free software also runs on Windows so... Firefox on Windows, anyone?

freemedia2018
March 18th, 2019, 03:28 AM
it should bring things that you don't get on Windows.

Freedom is a feature, and Windows will never match free competitors for privacy or choice.

Though I'm concerned about the choice front on some things, even free software these days. Overall, it is doing great. But it was doing a little better a few years ago. People need to remember that freedom is a feature, if they don't want less sympathetic developers to adopt projects, bundle them, and then make it extra trouble to separate the components.

This is a way for large corporations to adopt/extend/downgrade free software, regardless of the fact that other developers don't have to use their versions-- or that they can just take the software and decouple it again. This is generally thought of as something that needs to be proprietary for a corporation to manage. In my opinion though, it is working with several large, unwieldy open source offerings.

Only certain components are affected, but I believe it is hurting choice in our software ecosystem. Mozilla is even guilty of it, making it so you can't just use the browser with ALSA. There should at the very least be an --alsa command line option. Unfortunately, the more people couple components that should be optional, the closer we get to Windows (and the fewer choices we have.) Too many developers are making design decisions that reduce choice, when GNU/Linux was always (and could remain) very modular. The bundling of optional components should happen more in the package management, less in the development. Otherwise we do lose some of the freedom we enjoyed years ago, even with free software.

Tadaen_Sylvermane
March 19th, 2019, 05:03 AM
I love Linux and open source. It has let me do many things around my home that I used to only dream of. I love my media server and boxes around the house. That being said, as far as desktop use I find it a royal pain in my ass. I use it, and get my work done but it is frustrating. It's like I always have to put up with it rather than just love it. One day something works, the next it doesn't. No real explanation, spend hours googling only to reboot and it's working again. I've tried using all flavors of Ubuntu as well as Debian (don't know much about others). I have simply had no full success with my laptop, always something I have to just "live with". My wife has none of this stuff going on. We put Windows 10 on her machine and she uses it half the day 5 days a week. No trouble whatsoever. The only thing I do to her computer is reboot it weekly. Otherwise, it updates and takes care of itself. I almost never touch it.

I have learned a great deal I think by running Linux on my laptop for the last 4-5 years. But I am honestly in the market to sell my laptop, downgrade to something smaller and more portable. Possibly a Chromebook. But even if I get a regular, just smaller laptop, I won't be putting Linux on it. Tired of the effort.

freemedia2018
March 19th, 2019, 05:34 AM
I have learned a great deal I think by running Linux on my laptop for the last 4-5 years. But I am honestly in the market to sell my laptop, downgrade to something smaller and more portable. Possibly a Chromebook. But even if I get a regular, just smaller laptop, I won't be putting Linux on it. Tired of the effort.

I don't think this will change your opinion, but I have to point out that the past 4-5 years are some of the worst for the platform. And I don't just mean Ubuntu. 2007 for example, was a pretty sweet spot when it seemed like everything was getting better, not worse. Right now, it seems like every day is like you said.

Your sentiment is common among newbies, but for Ubuntu for example, I go back to Breezy. And i think it probably worked better than Penguin-- or whatever P animal they went with, because I still can't believe they skipped Penguin (or GNU.) How did that even happen? Well, it's a new decade. Maybe they will do GNU and Penguin this time. It seems fairly obtuse not to.

again?
March 19th, 2019, 10:21 AM
Who cares. :rolleyes:
In my world Linux is dominant and that's all that matters.

Tadaen_Sylvermane
March 19th, 2019, 03:47 PM
I don't think this will change your opinion, but I have to point out that the past 4-5 years are some of the worst for the platform. And I don't just mean Ubuntu. 2007 for example, was a pretty sweet spot when it seemed like everything was getting better, not worse. Right now, it seems like every day is like you said.

Your sentiment is common among newbies, but for Ubuntu for example, I go back to Breezy. And i think it probably worked better than Penguin-- or whatever P animal they went with, because I still can't believe they skipped Penguin (or GNU.) How did that even happen? Well, it's a new decade. Maybe they will do GNU and Penguin this time. It seems fairly obtuse not to.

Possibly. I don't know though if I should wait and hold on hoping for the next good run, or move on to something I know won't give me any crap.

For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain my issues are DE related. My server is 100% rock solid. To borrow a statement I heard someone say about Debian, "It's so stable it hardly breathes." I have zero problems with it. Laptop / Desktop however, little things that irritate me to no end. And I can never seem to fix them, most of the time I post on forums about various issues and get either no response else "never seen that before". It's frustrating.

Maybe it will come back to a good years for the platform, but how long does one put up with problems in hope of something better. Especially when you see the computer next to you working perfectly day in and day out. I don't like Windows, hate it rather. But I cannot deny the reliability it is giving my wife. She just uses her computer. I have to constantly tinker and fiddle to make mine work, and even after that I still have to "put up with" some things that I simply cannot change. I don't have the frame of reference of a better time, last 4-5 years being my only time with Linux.

jdeca57
March 19th, 2019, 07:56 PM
I have to constantly tinker and fiddle to make mine work, and even after that I still have to "put up with" some things that I simply cannot change.
It is all a question of accepting the environment you work in. Personally I don't tweak things and I live with certain limitations. Of course LibreOffice isn't Office but then again it's good enough - for me.

The real problem is a system that's unstable and where problems hinder normal functioning. Standard Ubuntu - even in the non-LTS - is rather stable and if you never had any problems with Windows consider yourself lucky.

And by the way, in Windows there are also things you really can't change. But hey, It's Windows. Who would want to change that?

Tadaen_Sylvermane
March 19th, 2019, 11:24 PM
I've always had trouble accepting anything when it comes to computers I guess. I won't debate your point, you are definitely correct about that. Grass is always greener and so forth.

Therefore, my problem is me :). Not linux / windows.

Tobeus
March 20th, 2019, 05:21 PM
I had to chime in on this one. I am a Windows and Linux sysadmin by day, and an almost pure Linux user by night. I am also an avid gamer, which is quite a problem since that has always been a huge hurdle for Linux. Most AAA titles simply don't make Linux-compatible clients causing this sticky booger/bogey syndrome where a Linux user is forced to keep a Windows machine running somewhere (refusing to let go of its owner, thus the syndrome) so he/she can play those huge titles. Most of this has changed over the last several years with Steam, Play on Linux, Wine innovations, etc. really coming up-to-speed with modern gaming.

I believe the next major breakthrough for folks like me is most likely cloud gaming. Things like nVidia's GeForce Now allow gamers to play many titles on a cloud-based VM instance that minimize the video and CPU requirements in exchange for a huge need for a big internet connection. They currently do not have a Linux client, but if they ever create one, then it will be Game Over for a LOT of Windows boxes out there (pun intended).

For open-source purists, this may not be the great news they were waiting for, but that was not the question I am answering here. The question was, "Why is Windows still the dominant operating system", so I must ignore open-source purity for the time being, considering most of these solutions have tons of proprietary code in them. Either way, enjoy your computer and remember to make it do what YOU want it to do. With advancements in AI, it may not be that way forever.

mastablasta
March 21st, 2019, 08:32 AM
or google's stadia.

but yes, overall gaming is still problematic. just the other day i wanted to install some old windows games to the Linux side of the PC. just as test to see if i could get off the windows completely in the future. also winXP could no longer run on latest pc i guess (not counting virtualization).

anyway i did install: Arx Fatalis, UT2004, Hearts of iron 2 and Torchlight before. all with gol/platinum rating. you unpack the GOG game and it works. so far so good. excelent user experience (could be a bit better) but ok. mostly install and play.
over the weekend i tried to install Morrowind and Oblivion. i had Morrowind on 14.04, so i knew it could be done. both games have platinum rating on wine website. so off we go. morrowind, launched and crashed, oblivion launched and crashed. how is that platinum rating? platinum is torchlight. install and play, no issues whatsoever. then i remember openMW project and see that it is also suggested on UESP website. so i use that. ok it all works, yay i can play morrowind. time to transfer the saved files an continue where i left. ah but that is not supported (at least not at the moment).

so recap - games that practically worked out of the box on linux suddenly don't. Play on linux might save the day, but their install scripts do not work and it is useless at the moment. so the time has not yet come to abandon WinXP on this old clunker. but more importantly my son would like to play games and it is hard for me to advise him to get linux if i know that many games do not work or that they do work but they might not work next month.

Frogs Hair
March 23rd, 2019, 02:05 AM
Renewable subscriptions for office are Microsoft's largest source of revenue followed by server products and services, then Xbox, and finally Windows. The largest source of income being dependent on the operating system and Mac users both residential and commercial who subscribe to MSO. Gaming is one issue, but there other types of software that won't run on Linux with wine or crossover. My examples include Garmin Express and Phone Tray which is used to block robotic political and marketing calls.

Stan_Meissner
March 28th, 2019, 10:01 PM
I love Linux and have been using it exclusively since 2010 when XP support was discontinued for home users. I had experimented with it on an old computer that was gathering dust so I knew what I was getting into. In my case I liked it enough that my two most recent computer purchases were a System 76 laptop and a Zareason desktop. The only issue that bothers me with Linux is sometimes programs and hardware lose functionality for no apparent reason. When that happens things just stop working out of the blue like for instance my onboard sound and memory card reader on my Zareason desktop just quit working after I upgraded to 18.04. I had a Scarlett 2i2 USB audio interface I wasn't using anymore since I bought a stand alone 24 track so instead of going through the hassle of asking about my sound on the forum and having to stumble through entering terminal commands and posting the results I just hooked up the 2i2 and use it as an external sound device. As far as my card reader, and this computer was only about six months old when this happened, I bought a USB media card reader to read the cards out of my 24 track and switched to loading photos from my digital SLR to the computer using the camera's USB cable. I suppose that if I did a fresh install my sound would probably come back but I won't go through all that hassle when I've got better sound with this USB device than the onboard sound on my motherboard.

Anyways, that is the one irritating thing about Ubuntu is having stuff work for months or years then suddenly stop. I've built my own boxes in the past and know how to identify hardware failures and I'm sure that these two things stopped working due to some change in 18.04. The annoying thing is having to drop everything and get stuck in that loop where I'm having to post terminal commands and paste info in the message and take days or weeks to resolve these kinds of issues. My opinion about operating systems before switching to Ubuntu (and have tried Mint as well), is that people only think about operating systems when they don't work. I sat at a computer all day for years before I retired last fall and it was all Windows starting with 3.1 through 7. Nobody thought about the operating system until it crashed or caused problems otherwise it was out of sight, out of mind.

I have an old Dell laptop that I went through a week of hell over trying to get the wifi to work and an Epson printer that was difficult to setup as well. Both just worked in XP. Also I always used to network my home computers in Windows and ran a network in my home for years. I still haven't figured out how to get file sharing to work on my home network with Linux and doing that in Windows was so easy and intuitive that I just did it first time without even having to research how to do it. To translate my experience to the average person, nobody is going to run an OS where they can't figure out simple things and have to pay someone to setup their printer or get their wifi working or dig into terminal commands. I have built these things, sat in front of one all day every day for decades before I retired and never had to take one somewhere to have simple tasks done for me. As much as I like and appreciate Ubuntu (and all of the distros) I think until every routine setup issue is as easy as it was in Windows and Mac and doesn't involve working in terminal or trying to install things not packaged in an exe that it's going to scare most people off. For most of the masses their operating system is an after thought and they just expect things to work and not have to struggle with hardware issues that would be simple in another OS.

ra7411
March 29th, 2019, 12:55 AM
How many computer users even know something like Ubuntu exists, much less that it's free and will probably do everything they need?

Windows gets preinstalled on many new machines - many can't / won't work through an o/s install.

And the cutesy names they apply instead of just Ub 14.04, Ub 18.04 etc., doesn't help anything, it's confusing to those unfamiliar.

freemedia2018
March 29th, 2019, 01:21 AM
And the cutesy names they apply instead of just Ub 14.04, Ub 18.04 etc., doesn't help anything, it's confusing to those unfamiliar.

Maybe, though I really think they're useful. I first used Ubuntu (Breezy) in 2005-- that's half the number, 05. what was the rest? I could look it up but there are 2 versions each year. I know it was Breezy. I recall far more versions based on names than the numbers.

Other people who do the names: Debian (Toy Story names) Devuan (Celestial bodies) Trisquel (Deities of ancient mythology-- which could easily overlap with Devuan) and even macOS (Big cats, and other things) so I'm not sure Ubuntu is barking up the wrong tree with that.

LastDino
March 29th, 2019, 07:48 AM
Because it is first thing they introduce in schools when you talk about "Computers"

Generally people are just lazy if it requires learning new things if something can be kept constant with just little money.

CatKiller
March 29th, 2019, 01:48 PM
And the cutesy names they apply instead of just Ub 14.04, Ub 18.04 etc., doesn't help anything, it's confusing to those unfamiliar.

The version names are year.month. Perfectly straightforward. The descriptive names are only for development, and were initially related to the goals of each release: the initial release was Warty, the first LTS - where the main focus was polish - was Dapper, and so on. Since then the development codenames have become just a bit of fun. The official version names are the numbers, though, and always have been.

1clue
March 29th, 2019, 04:35 PM
First: Why would I care if everyone else in the world uses Linux? I don't want everyone in the world to use the same thing. I do not even slightly believe that one size fits all. People should use what appeals to them, or what fulfills their needs.

Second: All these companies you guys are talking about as the enemy? They're platinum members of the Linux Council. Just browse the "platinum members" for a few minutes and think about it. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/

Before any of you thinks that platinum membership in the Linux Council means that the companies really like Linux, consider that these companies now have the best influence over the path Linux chooses that money can buy. Microsoft pays a huge sum of money for that influence, every year. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/microsoft/microsofts-peace-treaty-linux-system

After you get done with that, use Google to search on "embrace extend extinguish" and ponder the fact that the term was first used outside of Microsoft in 1996, and the fact that it's still used there today without shame or secrecy.

1clue
March 30th, 2019, 05:56 AM
I might also point out that of those platinum members, at least one of them considers Linux to be its biggest competitor. At least one of them is strongly suspected to embed spyware into their consumer devices. Several others are frequently spoken of on this and other Linux forums as some sort of enemy, with widely publicized incidents provided as examples.

mastablasta
April 1st, 2019, 07:17 AM
Generally people are just lazy if it requires learning new things if something can be kept constant with just little money.

then why aren't more people using MS windows on their phones?


if new things are easy to learn, fun and can do things people want them to do, then people will use that instead.

uRock
April 1st, 2019, 03:10 PM
I might also point out that of those platinum members, at least one of them considers Linux to be its biggest competitor. At least one of them is strongly suspected to embed spyware into their consumer devices. Several others are frequently spoken of on this and other Linux forums as some sort of enemy, with widely publicized incidents provided as examples.

I see who you're talking about there.


To the OP, I have worked in the support field long enough to know that most people can barely use Windows and I would never wish our Linux support systems with having to help them with Linux. You'd probably never imagine there are people who don't understand how to use tabbed browsing, but I had a few calls a week from people who couldn't do that. I remoted into one of them's computer to show them how to use it and their response was worthy enough to get my call and screen recording to become part of our new peoples' training. In today's world, many end users have as hard a time doing basic skills on a computer as they do checking the tire pressures on their cars. I can't fathom those users trying to repartition their computer to start the install process.

Tadaen_Sylvermane
April 2nd, 2019, 04:14 PM
I've recently become a fan of XFCE. It is clean and easy to use. Very reliable lately as well. That being said, even though I find it to be the best DE I've personally used, it still feels like an afterthought. That is one problem that Linux has that Windows doesn't. They have a vision for their environment, we don't. We have a truckload of competing visions, none of which are even close to the refined user experience on a Windows machine. About the only thing that Linux has in the DE department that others don't, or didn't until recently is the virtual desktops.

One major problem is the GTK vs QT argument. Yes we have both. Yay choice. Unfortunately the downside is apps never quite look right in the opposing environment. They look totally out of place. Ruins the immersion and coherence.

Another major problem that I personally see. To much choice. I know people don't agree with me but we just have to much going on. The effort of the entire community is diluted horribly. How many total DE's / WM's are there? I can guess and say 30-40? On Windows everyone is focused on making a single DE perfect. On linux we are focused on 30-40 different ones at the same time. End result? None are very polished. Most leave a lot to be desired in my experience (I've distro and DE hopped repeatedly for the last couple years). Don't even get me started on "simple text editors". We have enough of those to sink a battleship.

One more problem, again no one will agree with. To many distros. Yes we all love choice. But it is flat out overwhelming for anyone. Personally I stick to the big ones because I know from experience they will give me the least trouble. However for a newcomer who does have the thought to question what runs on their computer they get told to go to distrowatch. How many current distros are there? It's out of control and ridiculous. I was told that and almost walked away when I first started. It was just to much. Most people aren't as curious as I am though. They see a list like that and say screw it.

Last problem I can think of is themes. I love themes on my desktop. I change practically everything. But in nearly every DE I've tried regardless of theme choice, they are never perfect. Always something missing. It breaks the whole theme imo when this happens. Prime example for me was the app selector close button on the top left of unity. No matter what theme you picked, that never changed. It was always that horrible orange brown color. KDE also suffers from this as well to a great extent, presumably because of the GTK / QT issue.

Those are off the top of my head.

xbccoffee
April 2nd, 2019, 04:45 PM
linux myths, installed on most computers and has the biggest advertising.

1clue
April 2nd, 2019, 07:07 PM
I've recently become a fan of XFCE. It is clean and easy to use. Very reliable lately as well. That being said, even though I find it to be the best DE I've personally used, it still feels like an afterthought. That is one problem that Linux has that Windows doesn't. They have a vision for their environment, we don't. We have a truckload of competing visions, none of which are even close to the refined user experience on a Windows machine. About the only thing that Linux has in the DE department that others don't, or didn't until recently is the virtual desktops.

One major problem is the GTK vs QT argument. Yes we have both. Yay choice. Unfortunately the downside is apps never quite look right in the opposing environment. They look totally out of place. Ruins the immersion and coherence.

Another major problem that I personally see. To much choice. I know people don't agree with me but we just have to much going on. The effort of the entire community is diluted horribly. How many total DE's / WM's are there? I can guess and say 30-40? On Windows everyone is focused on making a single DE perfect. On linux we are focused on 30-40 different ones at the same time. End result? None are very polished. Most leave a lot to be desired in my experience (I've distro and DE hopped repeatedly for the last couple years).


The thing that Windows has that is lacking in Linux is direction. They have a single authoritative entity which decides exactly how things will be, and you can like it or leave. People who do not share that vision of one-size-fits-all are out of luck.

XFCE is fine as it is. The teams who make window managers have or had a vision. They came up with a set of requirements and made something that satisfied those requirements. Like with Windows, most who use any given window manager use the default setup. Unlike with Windows, if you don't like it you don't have to sit there and suffer, and you don't have to leave. You can tweak. Most window managers on Linux are tweakable. For some of them, like fvwm, tweakability is the primary feature.



One more problem, again no one will agree with. To many distros. Yes we all love choice. But it is flat out overwhelming for anyone. Personally I stick to the big ones because I know from experience they will give me the least trouble. However for a newcomer who does have the thought to question what runs on their computer they get told to go to distrowatch. How many current distros are there? It's out of control and ridiculous. I was told that and almost walked away when I first started. It was just to much. Most people aren't as curious as I am though. They see a list like that and say screw it.


Distrowatch is a bit of a lie. It's useful in its own way, but it doesn't take down distros which are no longer viable for years. It doesn't filter out special-purpose distros unless you specify it, and some of those special-purpose distros are in with the 'general' category because they don't fit into one of the few special-purpose categories. They also don't seem to care how viable the distro is. Some of them probably have one guy who has his own distro and his own website for it. I haven't browsed their site for years, but have done so both for the entertainment and to find something new to try.

Linux distros start with a philosophy. It's usually something simple. That's the real difference between Linux and Windows. Windows is something a company tries to sell to everybody, in order to make money. Linux is a collection of groups of people who share a philosophy and work toward bringing it to fruition, so that they have something they like to use.

The way to find a Linux distro is to look at the priorities of the distro. If you find one that you like, try browsing their forum to see how the community interacts. If that's good, then try out the distro to see what's up. Ubuntu has a really nice forum, and does a lot of testing. They have a minimal server build with no GUI, so that's special too. And they don't interfere with people trying to install commercial software. That's a requirement for me.

That said, I use several distros, and every so often I'll fire up a VM with something new to try, or even something old that I want to check out again. There's no requirement to have just one distro, and there's no prize for sticking with the same one. Nobody gets more money because you stick with Ubuntu or not. Staying with the same distro is like eating at the same restaurant every time you eat out. And ordering the same exact plate. It was probably great the first few times, but after awhile you could maybe enjoy something else.



Last problem I can think of is themes. I love themes on my desktop. I change practically everything. But in nearly every DE I've tried regardless of theme choice, they are never perfect. Always something missing. It breaks the whole theme imo when this happens. Prime example for me was the app selector close button on the top left of unity. No matter what theme you picked, that never changed. It was always that horrible orange brown color. KDE also suffers from this as well to a great extent, presumably because of the GTK / QT issue.

Those are off the top of my head.

You're looking at this as a consumer. Tweak something.

Linux was never meant to be a single solution for everyone. Trying to make it be that single solution is ridiculous. Figure out what package has that button and find out if you can change it in configuration or by altering code. If not, file a feature request or bug report at the appropriate upstream site. Or find out if you can pay somebody who has access to fix it for you, so everyone else can enjoy your fix.

With Linux you're not stuck with what they give you out of the box.

Edit: The entire point of Linux was that for some people, Windows was not an acceptable operating system. If you try it and like Windows better, it doesn't mean you're a bad person or a failed Linux user. It just means you like Windows better. You are under no pressure to stay with Ubuntu, or XFCE, or Linux in general. If you find a distro that gets you most of the way toward what you want, then use it. Tweak it to take it closer to what you want. When you get tired of tweaking, stop and use it for awhile. Maybe you'll want to tweak later. Or maybe you want a Mac or a Windows box again. Maybe you can have more than one distro, and maybe a box with Windows on it, or in a VM?

Do what you want. Use what you need.

Above all, stop worrying about what somebody else wants on their computer. Enjoy what's on yours instead. Maybe they'll see you having fun and want to try it out too.

Tadaen_Sylvermane
April 3rd, 2019, 03:22 PM
You're looking at this as a consumer. Tweak something.

I am actually. I'm looking at it like most people do. Linux users are a different breed to put it mildly. We are not "most people". What I wrote is the stuff I first thought before I became a regular user of it after very little playing about with it. Most people don't look for the tweak part, they just want it perfect from the start. The more work they have to put in, the less they want it.

jaka4
April 3rd, 2019, 08:40 PM
Because it comes pre-installed. That's the bottom line. Regular users can't be bothered to install a different operating system. Which is fair. And if they had to install an operating system, Linux is just way easier to install, yes the GUI for windows installation looks pretty but my god, I had to diskpart my drives to get them into the right filesystem to install the OS.. Linux GUI installers have three next buttons to press and you are good to go.

If Ubuntu came pre-installed people would use it. No questions asked. It's easier to find solutions and alternatives after you are already in the OS, few people would go bother with downloading, pirating, buying Windows, downloading a ISO USB writer, it's a hassle.

tjeremiah
April 4th, 2019, 12:57 AM
I guess one solid reason is that Windows 10 is really good. But not only that, Windows is cool. They added dark themes to make it look more modern and even hinting at updated the look of file explorer this year. Microsoft gets it and their hardware isn't bad too.

mastablasta
April 4th, 2019, 08:15 AM
I guess one solid reason is that Windows 10 is really good. But not only that, Windows is cool. They added dark themes to make it look more modern and even hinting at updated the look of file explorer this year. Microsoft gets it and their hardware isn't bad too.

we are talking about desktop here (because in server Linux is more popular i believe).

and when you install the software it works. you usually don't get strange issues to resolve. like for example when i tell Battle for Wesnoth to go full screen, it turns on (!) the second monitor (TV) and places itself there in full screen. with all the permission restricions in linux you would expect that a game would't be able to activate the deactivated screen.

or when i exit the OpenMW game i get flickering when two windows are displayed.

when i exit dosbox instead of getting previous resolution i get 640x480 with huge fonts and everything is in corner. it used to work nicely before and got proper desktop resolution and all on exit, but does no longer work. i had occasionally experience that on windows 98, but on windows XP this would happen only (occasionally) when full screen game crashed.

or "usually" (on stable version such as enterprise or pro) the software (from their repositories) that works, doesn't just stop working after you did a software update.

these are just a couple of small annoyances that i found so far. i didn't really have time to deal with the system that much and i've mostly been using only browser. but kids had some complaints since they do games a bit more. anyway to me they are minor annoying things. but i know this kind of thing happens with some other software and plenty of it is down to system and how they maintain their repositories.

most importantly these noticeable annoyances never happened on any windows OS i used so far.

1clue
April 4th, 2019, 05:00 PM
I am actually. I'm looking at it like most people do. Linux users are a different breed to put it mildly. We are not "most people". What I wrote is the stuff I first thought before I became a regular user of it after very little playing about with it. Most people don't look for the tweak part, they just want it perfect from the start. The more work they have to put in, the less they want it.[/COLOR]

Which brings us back to the fact that Linux wasn't intended for "most people." It was made BY people who were dissatisfied with Windows and Mac OS, who wanted something different, and went about building it. It was made FOR people with the same viewpoint, who all worked on some project they felt was poorly represented in the commercial world, and who were working on something which did what they wanted to do better than the commercial sector did. You can use my code, please share yours with me.

Originally it mostly happened in an academic or scientific community, and sharing was just how you did things. Later that got formalized into what we now call FOSS, (FOSS started before Linux. I'm talking about more than just Linux here) and people accepted that you might not share anything right away, or even ever. But the premise was that people who used FOSS software eventually did something for the FOSS community in return. Documentation, paid enhancements, even hiring a developer from the project you were interested in to have them install the software on your commercial server.

On Windows you are a customer because you buy a license to use Windows. Most people buy it with the computer they bought, it's built in. Others buy a box with a license in it, or these days you buy the license from a website and download the software.

On Linux you are NOT a customer. You are a member of the community. While these days many community members are not contributing back, the premise is the same. Somehow, the community should be in a better position because of your presence. Now or in the future does not matter.


Because it comes pre-installed....

This is a remarkably good point. One of the original arguments for Ubuntu was that it was easier to install than Windows. When I first saw it, I was already a dyed-in-the-wool Linux user. I don't even remember what distros I was using at the time. A coworker called me over to his desk, stuck a hand-burned CD into an old laptop, booted it and started a timer. From power on to rebooting into the native desktop was 5 minutes, this was installing it onto the hard drive. It's more complicated than that now, or at least last time I installed a desktop version it was.

At that time installing Windows onto a system took a good hour or more for a basic install. We were IT people in a company with hundreds of employees, so we actually had to install Windows fairly often. So the argument that Ubuntu was easier to install than Windows seemed valid.

But that's not how it works. People don't install Windows. They don't install Mac OS. Or Android, or iOS. They buy a gadget that has everything already installed. It's a tough sell to go from that to even a 5-minute install process.


I guess one solid reason is that Windows 10 is really good. But not only that, Windows is cool. They added dark themes to make it look more modern and even hinting at updated the look of file explorer this year. Microsoft gets it and their hardware isn't bad too.

That's true too. Microsoft has spent billions of dollars and decades of time to make a product that is useful to mainstream users. It's shiny. It's cohesive. It works. It has the world's largest collection of software built for it. It's socially acceptable. It has a really really big advertising budget and a lot of experts in every city who will talk it up.

It's what everyone wants, except for the people who don't want it.

In my opinion, we should be happy that Microsoft makes Windows, and that Apple makes Mac OS X. The people who are attracted to those will go buy whatever systems they want, with whatever OS they like and whatever software they like.

That means that the Linux community has neither obligation nor incentive to build something for those guys. Microsoft and Apple can have those consumers. Some of us maybe ARE those consumers. There's a Mac sitting on my desk, sometimes I use it to connect to a VPN for my work. My wife uses a Windows 10 laptop. They're fine for what we use them for. My main desktop is Ubuntu. I have a half dozen systems in my house, and the rest of them are Linux of various distributions. There is no shame in mixing commercial operating systems and free ones. There's no shame in having multiple systems of various Linux distributions. I can't even imagine a reason why it wouldn't be that way.

If you want something like Windows, then get Windows. If you want something like a Mac, then get a Mac. If you like Linux, then get Linux. Get all three if that's what you like.

freemedia2018
April 4th, 2019, 06:18 PM
FOSS started before Linux. I'm talking about more than just Linux here

Indeed, it was just "FS" then.

The OS came later, in both relevant uses of the initials. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html
(https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html)

the Linux community has neither obligation nor incentive to build something for those guys. Microsoft and Apple can have those consumers.

For better or worse, Microsoft and Apple are now among the developers. They are part of the "community", technically speaking-- and being monopolistic corporations, they are also not part of it. But they are, in ways that are difficult to deny. You use Webkit? I realise it was KHTML first, it's still something that Apple made. CUPS? Apple. While macOS uses nano and bash. I'm not saying there isn't a distinction, but it's getting trickier. I can still tell the difference-- but what is it, though?

1clue
April 4th, 2019, 11:55 PM
Indeed, it was just "FS" then.

The OS came later, in both relevant uses of the initials. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html
(https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html)


For better or worse, Microsoft and Apple are now among the developers. They are part of the "community", technically speaking-- and being monopolistic corporations, they are also not part of it. But they are, in ways that are difficult to deny. You use Webkit? I realise it was KHTML first, it's still something that Apple made. CUPS? Apple. While macOS uses nano and bash. I'm not saying there isn't a distinction, but it's getting trickier. I can still tell the difference-- but what is it, though?

FOSS: Yes, but RMS was doing his stuff prior to Linus getting involved.

Microsoft and Apple, and many others: Yes, I also pointed out the platinum members of the Linux Foundation in this thread.

Cups, yes it's clearly apple and no big deal. Many corporations have contributed large or small bits of software or money to the cause of FOSS. Uneducated Linux users seem to think that every commercial enterprise is automatically the enemy, but don't realize that a hefty part of what they use right now either started as commercial software or was built by commercial entities as a contribution to FOSS. Many FOSS device drivers are a direct contribution from the manufacturer. Wine is a FOSS subset of a commercial product.

VirtualBox is GPL but the extension pack with much of the functionality is not. How can that be, you might ask? Because VB is owned by Oracle, and they can release their software under more than one license.
VMware has some parts under GPL and others under proprietary license.

The thing we need to be careful about is when a commercial entity either releases or embraces an app or API, and then extends it while only offering the extension as commercial software. The example was when Microsoft bought github. Some (myself included) feel that Microsoft will use their embrace-extend-extinguish philosophy with that and other FOSS projects.

As for commercial enterprises using FOSS software, that's a no-brainer. It has happened since day 1. There's no law against it. Most of it was designed around the idea of making money with it, and the authors of packages like apache web server and perl and whatever else used their professional experiences as input to the product.

freemedia2018
April 5th, 2019, 02:56 AM
Uneducated Linux users seem to think that every commercial enterprise is automatically the enemy

No, no no-- not "automatically." By their nature, monopolies are the antithesis of freedom. You cannot have freedom AND a monopoly. You cannot have a monopoly AND freedom. The free software movement knows this. The "open source" movement pretends not to know this.

It has nothing to do with commercial vs. non-commercial. Commercial is fine. It has everything to do with monopoly vs. non-monopoly. There's the problem, and when open source stands up to it-- great. But usually, open source cozies right up to monopolies. Microsoft always strives to be a monopoly. Linus says it's about hatred of Microsoft. This is a straw man-- the hate is towards abuse from monopolies, of which Microsoft is only one.

Lots of people realise where their software comes from. The official narrative is that you should just be grateful, no matter the cost-- as long as there's no money charged for it.

But those people are also aware of the modus operandi of large corporations. A lot of "new shiny" comes with strings attached. You can't have freedom AND strings. Free software (mostly) knows better than that. Everybody else has had close to 3 decades to figure out that the two are mutually exclusive.

wildmanne39
April 5th, 2019, 03:03 AM
Please stay on topic.

Thanks!

DuckHook
April 6th, 2019, 02:53 AM
In an effort to haul this thread back on topic, here are my two bits:

As QIII so eloquently points out (only to be apparently ignored), this question has it completely backwards, upside-down and inside-out. Its very premise is the reverse of reality and should instead be: "Why is Linux the dominant operating system?"

Because, by any real measure, Linux is the dominant OS and by a ludicrously wide margin:


It is on multiple times as many devices as any other OS: phones, tablets, cameras, routers, printers, switches, cars, planes, kiosks, servers, even your toaster.
It is the OS that is on any supercomputer worthy of the name. Windows does not even enter the conversation. As of 2018/11/01 every single one of the top 500 supercomputers in the world runs Linux.
It is the backbone of our society's infrastructure: banks, stock exchanges, e-commerce, social media, cloud, telecoms, the electrical grid, even space (the ISS) but most significantly, the Internet itself.

The only way that the question in the thread even makes sense is if we artificially constrain consideration to the wholly contrived straitjacket of the desktop. To that, others have made adequate reply.

My following statement is admittedly personal—arrogant even—but it's this:

Within the diminishing and now tiny sphere of the desktop, I don't want Linux to become "popular". I like things the way they are, thank you very much. If Linux is obscure, technical, cussed and difficult, it is also these very qualities that make it free, flexible, configurable and powerful. Were Linux to become "popular", this would inevitably be at the expense of an influx of hordes of the uninformed and the irresponsible who will turn it into a malware cesspool, who refuse to practice good computing habits, who abuse its flexibility and then blame it for their ineptitude, but most of all, who demand that Linux be dumbed down to the lowest level of shared mediocrity.

Microsoft and Apple can keep their homecoming queen tiaras. I'm more than happy with my fussy, finicky, unpopular OS that flies under the radar, but has given me more power, flexibility, control and freedom than any ten other OSes put together, yet demands absolutely nothing in return from me—not one red penny—except possibly what I am prepared to voluntarily contribute back to the community.

Frankly, it's the best deal I've ever seen in my life.

1fallen
April 6th, 2019, 03:22 AM
Frankly, it's the best deal I've ever seen in my life.

I'll second that! :)

yetimon_64
April 6th, 2019, 04:49 AM
...
My following statement is admittedly personal—arrogant even—but it's this:...

=d>... And what followed that is worthy of a standing ovation ...=d>


Frankly, it's the best deal I've ever seen in my life.
Yes indeed, +1.

uRock
April 6th, 2019, 07:04 PM
In an effort to haul this thread back on topic, here are my two bits:

As QIII so eloquently points out (only to be apparently ignored), this question has it completely backwards, upside-down and inside-out. Its very premise is the reverse of reality and should instead be: "Why is Linux the dominant operating system?"

Because, by any real measure, Linux is the dominant OS and by a ludicrously wide margin:


It is on multiple times as many devices as any other OS: phones, tablets, cameras, routers, printers, switches, cars, planes, kiosks, servers, even your toaster.
It is the OS that is on any supercomputer worthy of the name. Windows does not even enter the conversation. As of 2018/11/01 every single one of the top 500 supercomputers in the world runs Linux.
It is the backbone of our society's infrastructure: banks, stock exchanges, e-commerce, social media, cloud, telecoms, the electrical grid, even space (the ISS) but most significantly, the Internet itself.

The only way that the question in the thread even makes sense is if we artificially constrain consideration to the wholly contrived straitjacket of the desktop. To that, others have made adequate reply.

My following statement is admittedly personal—arrogant even—but it's this:

Within the diminishing and now tiny sphere of the desktop, I don't want Linux to become "popular". I like things the way they are, thank you very much. If Linux is obscure, technical, cussed and difficult, it is also these very qualities that make it free, flexible, configurable and powerful. Were Linux to become "popular", this would inevitably be at the expense of an influx of hordes of the uninformed and the irresponsible who will turn it into a malware cesspool, who refuse to practice good computing habits, who abuse its flexibility and then blame it for their ineptitude, but most of all, who demand that Linux be dumbed down to the lowest level of shared mediocrity.

Microsoft and Apple can keep their homecoming queen tiaras. I'm more than happy with my fussy, finicky, unpopular OS that flies under the radar, but has given me more power, flexibility, control and freedom than any ten other OSes put together, yet demands absolutely nothing in return from me—not one red penny—except possibly what I am prepared to voluntarily contribute back to the community.

Frankly, it's the best deal I've ever seen in my life.Drops mic and walks away.

Kris_M
April 22nd, 2019, 05:12 AM
See sig for my current setup.

I think windows is designed with people in mind that just want the OS to work. In many ways it is idiot proof. That was their intent. That is why it is popular. Especially a.r.t. display cards. It can always default to low res no matter what graphics card is connected.

For a long time, (still?) some Linux distros expect/require folks to be not only smart but command line savvy.
Most windows users don't want to deal with a command line. They simply cannot understand it.
I have to have a 3 page log of how to set up things like printers, external HDs, headphone vol, grub customizer, MS fonts, etc etc. Few windows users would tolerate that.

Over the past many years, I gravitated from distro to distro(mostly debian), but always as a dual boot to windows - simply so that I would have something that works.
This was especially true on a custom box and dealing with graphics cards.

Even as recently as a year or 2 ago I wound up having to rebuild everything simply because a graphics card burnt out and I had to replace it. Linux does not play nice with either Nvidia or AMD, though, yes, of course, I have gotten it to work nicely - for a while. This was Ubuntu back in the 16's and prior.

It's tough to boot to win just to communicate with the forum to try to get a solution when Linux won't boot.

Why can't it boot if fstab is bad? That's foolish!

I also wasted a lot of time trying to convert to UEFI/GPT. Stupid. Finally dropped back to BIOS/MBR. Everything just works with it.

Two things changed:
1) I decided I wanted to increase my reliability, coupled with downsizing, so I went to a laptop and stopped building boxes. So far, the laptops (I'm on my third) all have had simple displays driven by the Intel chip. Ubuntu seems to like that setup. simple. works.
2) Ubuntu has gotten much more reliable and foolproof. But I have zero faith that I could build a box with high end stuff and have it be and remain foolproof. I learned the hard way.

So while I still dual boot to win7 (tried win10 and backed off) I am ready for win7 to go off support, especially since I only use it maybe 1% of the time, or much less.

I have no interest in current games. wine works perfectly for my NWN/2 stuff and DosBos works flawlessly for Stonekeep/Ultima Underworld 1&2 etc.

I will remain with a simple system. If I were to build a box, it would only use the display built in to the Intel chip.

Until Linux can handle a custom box dependably through any disaster and boot no matter what (display-wise) has changed, like windows can, Linux will remain an also-ran. Too bad! Display drivers are their Achilles heel.

mastablasta
April 23rd, 2019, 09:05 AM
Most windows users don't want to deal with a command line. They simply cannot understand it.


oh yes, and not only from the point of developer /OS administrator /advanced user way. it is easy to forget than not everyone speaks English as their first language or speaks English at all. maybe CLI would be more useful to me if it would be in my mother's tongue. so it is still strange to type commands in english and does not feel natural. sudo would probably make more sense to me if it was names sun or sunt something. i think it would help a lot if i could use my own language when giving commands. they would make a lot more sense. i remember ti was strange when they made windows in my language, but then i got used to it and it is so much easier when you don't know how to do something (especially office). and since most stuff can be done in GUI there...



I have no interest in current games. wine works perfectly for my NWN/2 stuff and DosBos works flawlessly for Stonekeep/Ultima Underworld 1&2 etc.


wine works well for some games. some are giving me major issues (despite their platinum rating). Dosbox games work well, however when returning form full screen i get 640x480. this is on old hardware. used to work fine before. for osme old games there are also good new engines (like OpenMW or Quake...)

it's the little things that get me annoyed. like resolutions not returning to preset state or lately some games turning on the other secondary display overriding settings.

while some say desktop don't matter, they matter to me. i do all work on desktop, 98% internet browsing i do is on desktop, i play games on desktop, watch videos...

i don't use smartphone phone as desktop substitute. i rarely use it when i am outside the house. occasionally i would use it's navigation and as dictionary and as calendar/planner, occasionally to check emails. i tried a few games but they are not nearly as good as those on desktop. they are also mostly based on you spending time with them while they serve you ads. so at least to me and it seems many users it is a big deal what they use on desktop and that linux is not dominating desktop (it's just not ready).


here is an interesting website that gets updated when major issues that users would have are resolved: https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.htm l

william-s2
April 26th, 2019, 11:20 PM
I used Linux, and nothing but, from 2004 to 2013, I was away for a few years. I had to use Win7 due to an important project. Though, a half year ago, I picked up a new thinkpad and installed Ubuntu on it. I was really impressed at how far Ubuntu had come. Last month, I changed my work desktop back over to Ubuntu 18.04 and, like many on this thread have said, it works just so much better, no bloatware, no tie-ins, it just works. I do a lot of desktop publishing and changed from a proprietary software to Scribus, I am totally happy with it. I'm always amazed that most are so content on Windows.

Kris_M
April 26th, 2019, 11:30 PM
I used Linux, and nothing but, from 2004 to 2013, I was away for a few years. I had to use Win7 due to an important project. Though, a half year ago, I picked up a new thinkpad and installed Ubuntu on it. I was really impressed at how far Ubuntu had come. Last month, I changed my work desktop back over to Ubuntu 18.04 and, like many on this thread have said, it works just so much better, no bloatware, no tie-ins, it just works. I do a lot of desktop publishing and changed from a proprietary software to Scribus, I am totally happy with it. I'm always amazed that most are so content on Windows.

I agree. Ubuntu has massively improved wrt reliability and ease of use.

thenailedone
April 26th, 2019, 11:57 PM
Why is Windows still the dominant desktop operating system?

No other company has targeted the Desktop market so aggressively and leveraged resources and tactics to bind users to specific applications in their professional and private lives to ensure their OS is the one that you must use. Well, that was back in the day. Now it is also very much simply a case of user familiarity.

exploder
April 27th, 2019, 04:29 PM
I have to admit, Microsoft has finally started to listen to what their customers want. Windows 10 despite it's criticisms has many good points these days. I recently found myself buying a Windows license for my main computer. I need Windows 10 to run software in hopes of getting a better job. Anyway, the install time was about the same as a modern Linux distribution. The provided software was surprisingly decent and I really did not need to add much to do what I need. The system boots fast and applications run quick too.

Not having to get third party anti virus software is nice. I liked that I could use MS Office online for free too! Microsoft seems to be doing away with the bundled junk, thank goodness! The look and feel is getting very good, at least as nice as running the Plasma desktop in KDE Neon. I bought the license strait from the Microsoft store and the system activated instantly. I actually felt like I got my moneys worth for once! My opinion on why Windows remains dominant on the desktop is because they put a lot into making the desktop look modern and elegant.

Microsoft certainly has made their share of mistakes but they seem to be finally getting things right. Making applications cross platform was a big step for Microsoft! I think they are realizing that the OS itself is not as important these days as the ability ton run the applications you need or want. Who would have ever thought Microsoft would build a Chromium based browser?

thenailedone
April 27th, 2019, 04:46 PM
Microsoft seems to be doing away with the bundled junk, thank goodness!

Yeah I am so glad they download and install gigabytes of unsolicited games and applications after installation without my consent now, much better.

Kris_M
April 27th, 2019, 11:03 PM
win10? - even though I am licensed for it - btdt - nope. back to win7.

him610
April 29th, 2019, 02:12 AM
Business runs on MS Windows. I have worked for several companies over the last few decades - they all used MS Windows. There is a huge eco-system out there that develops applications that run on Windows. The consumer market is basically small potatoes compared to the commercial market.

Shibblet
April 30th, 2019, 08:05 PM
Simply put, it's not. Linux runs on more computers than Windows does, worldwide, hands down. Servers, Android Phones, etc.

What I think you mean though, is why is Windows more prevalent on the home Desktop PC?

Simply put, it comes down to apps (software) and mentality.

There are certain programs out there (software) that is designed to run, and only run, on Windows. Adobe's Creative Suite is the first that comes to mind, but there are other applications as well. I used to work on a Roland SC-540EX Vinyl Printer/Cutter, and the software used for rasterizing/printing/cutting would only work on a Windows PC, along with a USB Dongle for security. Not to say it "couldn't" work on a Linux machine, but currently it does not work in WINE or any other derivation.

Proprietary Hardware, certain devices, etc., all have Windows drivers. Linux users can write a driver, or driver wrapper, with a lot of success, but still that requires effort.

Games are another aspect. And as Steam Proton / Wine has made a LOT of headway in this arena, it still comes down to running Windows software on Linux.

So, it all breaks down to Windows being dominant on the desktop because the software and games that they WANT, are available to run without having to make it run properly. And that's the mentality aspect as well.

The mentality that most people have toward Linux, is that it is a "free" version of Windows. It is not. It is a "free" operating system, that "can" run some Windows software, if you "make" it do that.

MartyBuntu
May 3rd, 2019, 12:53 AM
The mentality that most people have toward Linux, is that it is a "free" version of Windows. It is not. It is a "free" operating system, that "can" run some Windows software, if you "make" it do that.


Also, many people equate cost with value. "How can a free operating system be better than one you have to pay for?"...

It's a difficult ideological wall to scale in a capitalist, consumerist society. (Sorry, it's not my intention to get political, so I'll leave it at that. I hope everyone gets roughly what I'm saying).

Shibblet
May 3rd, 2019, 04:57 PM
Also, many people equate cost with value. "How can a free operating system be better than one you have to pay for?"...

I hear you. Sometimes you can equate quality with price. i.e. "You get what you pay for." And if it's free, then it can't be any good...

The best one i have heard, is that "Ubuntu is just a project that a bunch of college kids are screwing with." That one really made me laugh.


It's a difficult ideological wall to scale in a capitalist, consumerist society. (Sorry, it's not my intention to get political, so I'll leave it at that. I hope everyone gets roughly what I'm saying).

Nah, not hard for the thinkers. And that's been my "Linux" experience, as it is. The whole "Linux" community seems to be filled with active thinkers. Thinkers seem to know how to handle problems and make work-arounds, and the like.

Cheers to the Linux community!

MoebusNet
May 7th, 2019, 10:12 AM
Of course, you mean desktop operating system. Simply because Microsoft has invested a large amount of money to remain dominant in the PC space. When pushed, MS will absorb new/better aspects into their code base to maintain their lead. Note that Windows 10 is investigating including a complete Linux kernel in their Linux compatibility layer.

zorion
June 2nd, 2019, 11:06 AM
It is as simple as any hardware / software adapt it first for windows, and then if another.


Today there are still many things you can do in Windows for that reason that in Linux no.


A lot of hardware / software incompatible with Linux at all, and a lot that only advanced users can install.


They are important obstacles. I'm trying to do everything possible in Kubuntu, but Windows is still necessary for games / TV mainly ....


Going to Linux sometimes involves getting to learn commands that are not necessary in Windows. It is difficult for most.

kellemes
June 2nd, 2019, 01:43 PM
Being a veteran Linux-user (20+ years or so) I've never advised people to start using Linux (whatever brand).. it does not fulfill the needs of most modern end-users, they don't care about what os they are running, they simply want to be able to plug-and-play there devices, start up a browser, file manager, media player or play there games without having to invest time and energy in the choices they have, and how to set it up..
I'm not a big fan of Windows but for most end-users it simply works.. at least far better than all Linux-distributions I've come across. For general desktop use Linux is a mess.
I don't believe Linux will ever have a substantial market share for the desktop, except for Chrome OS.. in our household we have two Chromebooks our kids use at school and at home for there homework and it's simply perfect.
More than ever I wonder why I need a desktop at all.. in our household we all have phones, tablets, chromebooks, an iPad, Playstation.. the desktop I'm running (Dual Boot Windows/OpenSuse) is less and less needed.

jamespoos
June 5th, 2019, 01:23 AM
because a lot of people play games and the support for gaming is not so great in lunix if games made for windows where one day able to be 100% comparable and gpu had drivers just as good if not better than windows and they where updated regularly i could see lunix taking over

drv9977
June 6th, 2019, 11:59 AM
In my views Ubuntu Linux is much better OS than windows for professionals. But there are multiple reasons why Windows is more popular thank Linux.
1. Playing most of the quality Games in Linux is literally not possible.
2. Many popular software like Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator only works inside the Windows, and Linux does not have a competitive alternative to them.
3. Almost all systems comes with already installed OS, and most of these OS are Windows not the Linux.