Does Linux Have a Marketing Problem? (hackaday.com) 263
On Hackaday's hosting site Hackaday.io, an electrical engineer with a background in semiconductor physics argues that Linux's small market share is due to a lack of marketing:
Not only does [Linux] have dominance when raw computing ability is needed, either in a supercomputer or a webserver, but it must have some ability to effectively work as a personal computer as well, otherwise Android wouldn't be so popular on smartphones and tablets. From there it follows that the only reason that Microsoft and Apple dominate the desktop world is because they have a marketing group behind their products, which provides customers with a comfortable customer service layer between themselves and the engineers and programmers at those companies, and also drowns out the message that Linux even exists in the personal computing realm...
Part of the problem too is that Linux and most of its associated software is free and open source. What is often a strength when it comes to the quality of software and its flexibility and customizablity becomes a weakness when there's no revenue coming in to actually fund a marketing group that would be able to address this core communications issue between potential future users and the creators of the software. Canonical, Red Hat, SUSE and others all had varying successes, but this illistrates another problem: the splintered nature of open-source software causes a fragmenting not just in the software itself but the resources. Imagine if there were hundreds of different versions of macOS that all Apple users had to learn about and then decide which one was the best for their needs...
I have been using Linux exclusively since I ditched XP for 5.10 Breezy Badger and would love to live in a world where I'm not forced into the corporate hellscape of a Windows environment every day for no other reason than most people already know how to use Windows. With a cohesive marketing strategy, I think this could become a reality, but it won't happen through passionate essays on "free as in freedom" or the proper way to pronounce "GNU" or the benefits of using Gentoo instead of Arch. It'll only come if someone can unify all the splintered groups around a cohesive, simple message and market it to the public.
Part of the problem too is that Linux and most of its associated software is free and open source. What is often a strength when it comes to the quality of software and its flexibility and customizablity becomes a weakness when there's no revenue coming in to actually fund a marketing group that would be able to address this core communications issue between potential future users and the creators of the software. Canonical, Red Hat, SUSE and others all had varying successes, but this illistrates another problem: the splintered nature of open-source software causes a fragmenting not just in the software itself but the resources. Imagine if there were hundreds of different versions of macOS that all Apple users had to learn about and then decide which one was the best for their needs...
I have been using Linux exclusively since I ditched XP for 5.10 Breezy Badger and would love to live in a world where I'm not forced into the corporate hellscape of a Windows environment every day for no other reason than most people already know how to use Windows. With a cohesive marketing strategy, I think this could become a reality, but it won't happen through passionate essays on "free as in freedom" or the proper way to pronounce "GNU" or the benefits of using Gentoo instead of Arch. It'll only come if someone can unify all the splintered groups around a cohesive, simple message and market it to the public.
No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux dominates servers.
Linux doesn't dominate the desktop not because it's not known to be technically superior, but because of inertia and network effects.
But as more and more software moves to being cloud-based with web interfaces, there's less and less reason to run Windows. And when businesses no longer depend on Windows to run their business software, they will no longer insist upon it.
Re:No. (Score:4, Interesting)
Except native applications are just better than webapps. They run when I'm offline, they are faster, they are whitelisted upon download (and when communicating outside the machine via firewalls), and I control the updates.
To say nothing of the fact that things that move to webapps are usually ports of already OSS and cross-platform application
Re: (Score:2)
Except native applications are just better than webapps.
And we all know how the better thing always wins.
GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Another very serious problem WRT this particular issue is that some versions of the GPL and similar restrictive licenses limit commercial access to various resources without compromising IP rights;
F.U.D.
The whole idea of GPL and other copyleft license boil down to "do whatever you want with it *as long as* the next person in line gets the same freedom as you got"
(as opposed to persmissive license which boil down "do whatever you want with it *up to and including* locking it up and not giving the same freedom to the next person")
The whole patent stuff in GPLv2 is avoiding people finding loophole where you get the code, but actually can't get the "do whatever you want" freedom because there's some patent crafted specifically on purpose to prevent using the code.
The whole DRM stuff in GPLv3 is avoiding people finding loophole where you get the code, but actually can't get the "do whatever you want" freedom because there are cryptographic keys require to install your own modification of the code into the define and you didn't get these keys.
(The current Ur-example: Smartphone. Android is built upon GPLv2 source code - the Linux kernel part - smartphone chipset manufacturer even have the code available for download on request... but you can compile your own variant and upload it onto your own phone that you've bought, because the bootloader is locked and will only accept to boot code that was signed with the manufacturer's key)
As long as your not actively trying to make sure that nobody else could play with the GPL code you give to them, you're not having any problem with GPL code.
GPL code that you only use internally and don't provide to anybody else anyway ? no problem.
GPL code that you give out, but the users are free to play with it ? no problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Restricting dishonesty seems a reasonable policy to me!
Re: (Score:2)
As a "user" GPL does not restrict you in any way at all. It only restricts sellers and people who modify the software, and only affects them if they try to pass on the results as entirely their own - which is obviously dishonest. Restricting dishonesty seems a reasonable policy to me!
The GPL is really a contract with developers, not with users. And no the restrictions are not merely about misrepresenting ownership.
Re: (Score:3)
In the GPL there are no restrictions on the code that you write. None. It's one of the essential conditions of the Free Software definition.
There *are* restrictions on the code that you distribute; and only for the part of code that you get from other people, not the parts written by yourself. Those restrictions over code that is not yours are put in place to protect the people who get that code. Just like restrictions on law are put in place not to restrict your freedom, but to protect the freedom of every
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone lives in a city. Outside cities, Internet is not necessarily available.
Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux doesn't dominate the desktop not because it's not known to be technically superior, but because of inertia and network effects.
In the 1998-2010 timeframe, I got pissed off about OSX (long story) and went 100% Linux desktop, first RedHat, eventually Ubuntu. Then, after the fourth upgrade in a row where I found myself elbows deep fixing the sharp bits which had caused my network card not to work, or my dual-display not to work, or my boot process not to work, I decided ... fuck this. I like being an expert in this shit, but I don't like HAVING to be an expert to get trivial tasks done. I went out and got some Mac hardware and now my Linux boxes are all accessed via ssh as they were intended to be. OSX has let me down on this, too, but I'm much happier having it happen every five years rather than every nine months or a year.
Problem is, the vast majority of Linux UI work and review is "Oh, look, shiny", but a lot of it NEVER GETS FINISHED. People are always too busy off working on the next version which will fix all the problems of the current version in a more elegant fashion. Linux works on Android because Google sat down and made it work. You have no idea how much that pains me, because Google has the attention span of a gnat, but at least they were capable of knocking down the biggest pain points. That wasn't because someone went out and invented a new way to do things that was better, it was because they just kept plugging away at it.
When my mom was asking about which computer to get my dad, the answer was obvious: Chromebook. Yes, there's Linux under there. But that means fuck all to the user, because the system is designed to be more-or-less idiot-proof from the top down.
Similar Story .... but now on POP-OS (Score:5, Informative)
I ran Linux on server and (as a secondary system) on desktop from RedHat 6.2
Then, thoroughly fed up with MS, I went to Apple with their first Intel systems in 2005, and have been a loyal customer until I got fed up with shoddy hardware e.g. keyboards, price gouging and software 'incompatabilities' e.g. making it difficult to integrate other software.
I then tried windows10 and was horrified by the sign up process of complete handover of data to MS. Also I could not delete the crapware apps on a 'professional system'- they kept coming back onto the desktop and menus! And I have been with windows since 3.1 on my 286,
I still keep an apple system for media but have now gone completely over to POP-OS on system76 hardware. The main reason was I got fed up trying to configure machine learning and this just does 'install tensorflow GPU latest' and it is done.
All the main packages are available on a (free) apple-type 'store'.
so I get decent hardware, decent software which does not phone home with all my data. There is even support if I need it, and I am pleased to be supporting a shop that is making a decent fist of marketing linux.
Re: No. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easier to get him a phone. Or tablet. Unless his eyes are going and he won't wear reading glasses because "they make him look old."
I'm not trying to be insulting, here, but have you ever watched an older person learning to use a tablet or phone? I'm not saying it cannot be done, but the kind of fine motor control needed and the lack of any hard feedback when you've actually touched something is a HUGE detriment to learning. And that's before you even start on how undiscoverable modern UIs are.
[Also, your aside about reading glasses makes me suspect you're talking about the kind of dad who is *my* age, not the kind of dad who is my da
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, the vast majority of Linux UI work and review is "Oh, look, shiny", but a lot of it NEVER GETS FINISHED. People are always too busy off working on the next version which will fix all the problems of the current version in a more elegant fashion. Linux works on Android because Google sat down and made it work.
Except that's not how it is at all, it's not one list of problems that we're looking for increasingly refined solutions to. For servers it's mostly like that, we have objective benchmarks and metrics of throughput, latency, memory usage and if someone makes a breaking change that's a regression. GUIs are more like rearranging the furniture. Heck, scratch that it's like drawing up a floor plan, buying the furniture and doing all the interior decoration. The chances that two people would want it exactly the s
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, the vast majority of Linux UI work and review is "Oh, look, shiny", but a lot of it NEVER GETS FINISHED. People are always too busy off working on the next version which will fix all the problems of the current version in a more elegant fashion. Linux works on Android because Google sat down and made it work.
Except that's not how it is at all, it's not one list of problems that we're looking for increasingly refined solutions to. For servers it's mostly like that, we have objective benchmarks and metrics of throughput, latency, memory usage and if someone makes a breaking change that's a regression. GUIs are more like rearranging the furniture. Heck, scratch that it's like drawing up a floor plan, buying the furniture and doing all the interior decoration. The chances that two people would want it exactly the same is practically zero. Wants and needs change over time or sometimes simply by the context, if I'm making a wok dinner I want my wok pan easily available and if I'm making a steak dinner I want my cast iron pan instead. And the grass always looks greener on the other side, you make changes that makes whatever was in focus easier only to later realize that overall it was better the way it was.
I think you're talking about how the UI looks. I'm talking about how the UI is created. You can make fun of how OSX or Windows are hidebound and tied to the past, but the fact of the matter is that you can often launch and successfully run a decade-old program just fine. When a major UI revolution happens like Gnome 2->3, or Wayland, developers have to choose whether to spend their time chasing the new thing, or building a layer to abstract things away, or just stand pat and do actual feature work rel
Re: (Score:2)
Debian "testing" or "stable" is your friend. I presume you did not do that.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is not known on the desktop because Microsoft prevents OEMs from pre-installing it, both through Windows distribution agreements and the market capture thus created over the past 25 years.
The cloud is not about portability or compatibility, it's about cloud service providers amassing user data. Complex software is not suited to used from the cloud.
Re: No. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just that the larger OEMs found it wasn't worth it
Does Dell not count as a larger OEM?
Dell proves his point, only 2 product families ? (Score:3)
Just that the larger OEMs found it wasn't worth it
Does Dell not count as a larger OEM?
Dell proves his point. The very small number of people wanting Linux are restricted to a very limited number of product families. What is it at the moment two families, XPS 13 and Precision? Even for Dell Linux is not worth supporting across the entire product line like Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no, it disproves his point. Dell can install Linux on machines, Microsoft can't stop them.
The reason there are only two models is that they just don't sell well enough to warrant expanding the line and supporting other systems.
WE DONT WANT TO BE A CONSUMER OS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Get that through your thick skulls!
Linux and BSD are the only mainstream OSes left, that are actually bearable and not insultingly partonizing to a professional user!
(Professional means you use the computer. Not just colorful clickable appliances.)
Linux is nicely scriptable, easily configurable with mere commented text files, fully modifiable, has a vast library of nice small easily combined tools, pretty much everythig can be done via a file interface (sadly, not everything, because stupid), and you can actually *choose* and decide how it should be!
It is the professional tool that drills a hole through your foot if you tell it to! Because it expects you to not be mentally disabled or just too fuckin lazy to care. That is a good thing! A key feature!
If you do not want that, go pick another "padded cell" OS. One that tells you what you should want and what you are allowed to do, so you can drool-consume away in your mental wheel chair. I don't judge. :P
Re:WE DONT WANT TO BE A CONSUMER OS! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I will not get that through my (admittedly) thick skull, because it's not true. You think Linux would have the hardware support it does, without a significant install base? Heck no, and if the base shrinks, at all, that hardware support will probably go away. With more and more companies using hardware that isn't documented well (or at all, because of trade secrets), Linux needs all the vendor support it can get.
Yes, because of the inertia (Score:2)
I like your analysis and your implicit solution, but I think that most people will be too lazy to switch. Microsoft will continue to rake in the money.
However, I don't see it as a marketing problem so much as a lack of effective business models. There's a fundamental problem with relying too much on OSS when the OSS is essentially randomly motivated.
Hmm... In ontological terms (in search of a solution), Slashdot could run a poll about why people develop OSS. If the options are honest, I think the results wi
Re: (Score:2)
But as more and more software moves to being cloud-based with web interfaces, there's less and less reason to run Windows. And when businesses no longer depend on Windows to run their business software, they will no longer insist upon it.
I wish that was true. But the geniuses at Microsoft had long seen that coming. All they needed was a corporate chief less bound to the ideology of Big Business capitalism geared toward grinding all competitors to dust and pragmatic enough to see the benefit of merely taking bigger slices of the free-market pie while allowing others the chance to gather the crumbs.
It's for this and other not too altruistic reasons that MS developed their Linux services for Windows. In effect, users are tempted with the sug
Re: (Score:2)
Cough, cough, let me fix that for you. M$ Windows dominates the desktop and Linux dominates every other aspect of computing from mobile phones to TVs and appliance and of course servers. The shrinking desktop market is the market M$ leads in and that is now under deep threat.
Linux only dominates where no user sees it (Score:2)
For the high end scientific and engineering workstations where we find Linux, those users really want *nix. Linux happens to be the better supported *nix, so its really the 3rd parties not Linux itself that is responsible for
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me you're defining away Android as "visible Linux" just to buttress your argument. I don't except that: Android proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the right shiny UI coupled with the right megacorp behind it is sufficient to overcome the Microsoft barrier.
Because Android is not "visible Linux". The Linux kernel not being seen by 99.9x% of users and 70% of developers means it is not "visible". And of the 30% of developers that currently touch Linux, most of them don't really touch Linux, what they touch is Posix. The Linux kernel can be replaced by another Posix compatible kernel and most of those developers would not care.
What Google proved is that Linux can be a useful kernel in a smartphone, when one hides everything that is Linux and provides a non-Lin
Re: (Score:2)
Because Android is not "visible Linux".
By your definition, no Linux would be "visible Linux". Confused.
Linux distributions are "visible Linux". Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS, etc ... They announce they are Linux, they make the Linux userland available, developers for those platforms see Linux, etc.
Android is like the appliance or IoT device that has a Linux kernel behind the scenes. That is something far far different than a Linux distro where users are aware of and have chosen Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I've had with Linux is lack of drivers for peripherals (printers specifically).
I can obtain basic functionality of a printer with Linux but I've had problems with Canon (for example) because they don't provide drivers. Third party drivers often have gaps in functionality for multi function printers in my experience.
Once this resolved, I see no reason to stay with Microsoft.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux doesn't have a marketing problem. It has a "users won't install an OS on their computers by themselves" problem.
Most users don't know what an operating system even is. You're lucky if they know what a web browser is.
No amount of marketing is going to make the masses tech literate/competent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
System integrators aren't going to deploy an OS that lacks upstream accountability. There's literally nobody for them to call if/when something breaks, and little to no promise of forward compatibility with future releases. As many unknowns and issues are involved when working with MS -- including the lack of any viable alternative for vendors to use if MS is unresponsive to their concerns -- Linux has all of that and more. It just doesn't make a lot of sense from a business perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People want to use what friends and family use
The average person does NOT want to know about git, grep or any other command line stuff, they don't want to know how to use sudo, or how to install dependencies or see
Then you get into things like authenticated proxies where yes the Apps can use them but the username/password is sitting in an unencrypted text config file (this has improved over the last few years
Ubuntu (Score:2)
Ubuntu answered all the shortcomings b mentioned in the summary, and it didn't beat Windows on the desktop. Probably most users need to have it pre-installed.
Re: Ubuntu (Score:2)
Which Linux? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about servers, because Linux rules the roost. It doesn't rule the desktop and that's not because of marketing, it's because of the product. I suspect the author of this piece is trolling a bit but I'll bite... the desktop is just not user friendly. It doesn't have cool games, Photoshop, music packages or even the best IDE. What it does do well is offer endless customisation but that is well outside of the comfort zone of most folk.
Exactly. Most users install a few apps, such as Office, maybe some games or desktop versions of apps on their phone. Most of those apps don't have Linux versions; and users don't want t be bothered with "almost" the same apps, even if they would meet their needs.
The problem with the phone analogy points out Linux' desktop challenge; i.e. there is a lrge user base using Android based phones and this a market for apps, and the phones only compete basically with iOS, which is a closed system. and so when And
What is the best IDE? (Score:2)
It's only for Lightroom use at home or gaming that I don't use it exclusively.
Re: Which Linux? (Score:2)
Same as showing people a video of RMS eating his toe jam as the "spiritual head" of free software also hurts, especially now that he's 66 and still begs for a room to stay every few months (like he was doing when the whole Epstein thing hit the fan).
Unless independent developers and small software teams can support themselves writing software for Linux, they w
Yet more stupid (Score:3)
Disappointed something this stupid would come from hackaday. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Linux isn't a company, it is just an operating system. It doesn't need more users. If you use it or not doesn't affect linux.
No, linux doesn't have a marketing problem. It isn't a company. It isn't a product. It is just a freely available technology. Use it, or don't use it, that is up to you entirely, it doesn't matter to linux.
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ,
Users do matter. Linux is developed in good part by corporate users who finance devs to make it a tool adapted to their uses. More desktop users would mean better driver support for more esoteric hardware. And more commercial software for Linux. Like video games. Even if i admit we have made big strides in that direction.
It would also mean more people at least aware it exists and is a viable tool. I cannot complain about MY workplace but others who work in a more corporate environment would
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even an operating system; it's just a kernel.
Linux isn't ready for the desktop (Score:2)
Prefer macOS to Linux (Score:2)
The comment subject pretty much says it all. I use Linux. A lot. Mostly for terminal work, compiling, etc. When I want a GUI, I prefer macOS. Given experience, I'm not sure marketing enters much into it.
Re: (Score:2)
Using MATE, Compiz, AWN, and emerald, you can get all of the goodness of OSX and Windows' interfaces in the same package, without any of the "thou shalt do it our way" bullshit of either. You most especially get all the benefits of both GUIs with such a combination. If you haven't tried it yet, you only think you prefer OSX from a UI standpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're equating Windows' and macOS' interfaces, you're literally only going skin-deep. The UI/UX is much, much more than skinning.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not. I'm saying both have their good points, and you can have the best of both worlds with the above combination.
That's most but not all of it (Score:4, Insightful)
Whole he's right about marketing, there's another issue: application compatibility. No matter how good LibreOffice is, it's not going ot substitute for Word unless and until the same document turns out exactly the same way in both programs and can be edited equally well in both. If I hand someone my carefully formatted resume that I did in LibreOffice and Word shows it differently, then I've wasted effort and looked stupid to the hiring manager. (And yes, I've taken a Word resume and tried to edit it in LibreOffice, and got hash as a result.)
Similarly, the GIMP simply will not cut it to an experienced Photoshop user. I gave it a serious look earlier this year when I was getting ready to upgrade to Catalina on my Mac. (I have two Mac Pros, one running Linux, one Mac OS.) Just as it always has, it drove me nuts within minutes. I said the hell with that and bought Affinity Photo for the Mac.
Linux geeks say choices are good. The problem is that the average user doesn't want choices. They want an OS and applications that are easy to install and upgrade, and Just Work without a lot of fiddling. System76 has accomplished it for the OS; Pop!_OS is fantastic in that regard. But the apps just aren't there yet. Until they are, Linux on the desktop is a pipe dream.
You got it all backwards. (Score:3)
Someone recently gave me their Word-crafted resumee, and it looked horrible in LibreOffice. What were they thinking?!
And don't get me started about Photoshop... as a Gimp power user, I simply can't wrap my mind around their UI design. Oh, and I've been looking for the Script-Fu menu for literally decades now, they just don't have that.
And the Windows shell... it's a poor joke. They don't even support "ls". /sarcasm.
See what I did there?
You're not actually comparing "features" (in the meaning of: I need to g
Re: (Score:3)
Oh I once had to submit something as a Word document because they would not take PDF. So I rendered my LaTeX produced PDF to a 1200dpi bitmap for each page and included it into the Word document as an image, then sent it in...
You mean in the desktop (Score:2)
Marketing is only a small part (Score:2)
This piece seems to be confusing "marketing" with "all of business."
Another way to frame this, is why is the desktop market so stagnant in general. Sure, Linux isn't really shaking things up, but neither is anyone else.
The PC desktop market is broken, two big companies control it, mostly just one really, and it has been that way non-stop for decades. If some player took even half the budget the mac gets every year and directed it at the GNOME foundation, the Linux desktop would evolve more in that year than
Make it bulletproof and smooth (Score:4, Insightful)
Osx is really rough in a lot of linuxy ways, but Apple gets away with it because its smooth. The Linux community is around ten years too late on doing this, but hey there is always tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine example of which you speak; the second hard drive decided to show on the desktop and in the file manager as a very long serial number, not as 1TB_WD, which is what I asked for when I formatted it. Very long serial number is something only a computer would find relevant.
Can I fix it? Yes. Should I have to? No.
Now that I'm retired I have time to fuss with it. And I no longer need 100% compatibility with work. So when the flakey USB ports die on the windows box, I'm done.
By the way, the killer Windows onl
Not a problem (Score:2)
This is only a problem if widespread consumer adoption of the Linux kernel is somehow important. It's not. End users can and should select an OS that's compatible with their requirements, where a low setup and maintenance LOE is likely the fundamental concern.
Beyond that, there's more than just marketing involved. As the author alludes, there is not a breadth or depth of AAA software, which is necessary to sustain a consumer platform. This is why console (and phone) manufacturers push so hard for qualit
No (Score:2)
Marketing won't change anything
Power users need an OS that supports the software they use. Most serious software runs on windows
Many young people live their lives on their smartphone and don't own a computer
Business computer decisions are based on a lot of factors, like support cost and interoperability with other businesses
Computer illiterate people rely on friends, computer stores or paid consultants to choose and support their machines. If a friend asks me for a recommendation, I always recommend windows
No you have perception problem! (Score:2)
You act akin to demanding that Haas turning their CNC machines into 3D iPrinters, or orherwise "it has a marketing problem".
The actual problem is that you are obsessed with making Linux, *our* professional OS, appealing to the dumbest consumer masses.
NO. Let it be. You already have enough cumbersome limited OSes out there that act like a mentally disabled user's patronizong legal guardian! Use one of those.
One of them even (ab)uses Linux as its kernel.
And one is a Unix very close to BSD.
Linux is a kit for a
Too many versions (Score:3)
"It'll only come if someone can unify all the splintered groups around a cohesive, simple message and market it to the public." Even if Linux is superior to Windows and OS X" (and I think it is superior), it will take more than a simple, cohesive message to market it. If a person chooses Linux and the next question is, "Which version?," the next statement from that person would be, "Let me look at Windows or Mac."
Linux would need one desktop version that works smoothly right out of the box, otherwise Windows and OS x will continue to dominate.
Linux is an engineering problem (Score:3)
1. Again, Linux is a kernel. Still.
2. Linux doesn't dominate servers. Various distros based on the Linux kernel and GNU software are what servers run. Not just a single version of the Linux kernel. Mostly different versions of the kernel with different patches with varying support periods. RHEL is quite different from Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS.
3. Software compatibility in the world of Linux is basically a swear word. You can't have a successful OS without good backward and forward compatibility. Most 32bit applications from Windows 95 work just fine in Windows 10 64. You can compile software in Windows 10 which will perfectly run in Windows 7. Try compiling something in Fedora 31 and running it in Ubuntu 14.10. Good luck.
4. Stable APIs/ABIs in the world of Linux are basically a swear word.
5. Hardware support is a mysterious creature in the world of Linux. Your hardware might be 100% supported and work fine, but then it might have bugs which affect only a few people and these bugs may linger for ages, and in rare cases it might cease to work because of a new regression. And then there are devices which are not properly supported or not supported at all.
6. User experience breaking regressions and changes. E.g. Fedora 31 was released with broken bitmap fonts support [redhat.com]. The bug has been known for over three months already - no one gives a fuck. Gnome 3 was in general a huge regression in terms of usability (and some believe it still is). And there are plenty of other examples.
7. Various quirks and tiny bugs no one cares to fix. Linux distros have just too many of them. E.g. complete working Hi-DPI displays support is still not there even though we've had them for almost ten years.
8. No universal packaging format which doesn't carry all the dependencies with it (e.g. snap, flatpak, appimage).
And tons of other issues no one really cares about.
Again, this list of Linux problems [altervista.org] is still as relevant as ever.
Wrong tool for the job (Score:2)
I'm trying really hard not to roll my eyes.
People want something that they can use. It doesn't need to be the most powerful, the most flexible, the most capable—but it does need to meet some standard of usability. Linux is very versatile, and provided you have someone like Google putting an interface layer on it, you can sell it to hundreds of millions of people. But where do I tell my mother to go buy a new Linux box? Who troubleshoots it, since I live 3500km away? How do I tell her how to integrate
No, it's about applications (Score:2)
would love to live in a world where I'm not forced into the corporate hellscape of a Windows environment every day for no other reason than most people already know how to use Windows
I started going through our organisations Approved Software List.
12d? There is no Linux version of 12d Model
AutoCad? There seems to be a MacOs version, but no Linux version.
Vericom drivers? Nope.
I stopped pretty quickly as there's no point going further.
Linux does not support the apps nor drivers that would allow a significant percentage of our users to migrate off Windows. Supporting multiple managed environments is going to be more expensive than one, so why would you?
Marketing would help (Score:2)
If you have ever looked for something for Linux you have to know a lot of technical knowledge before hand to even attempt to install it, what flavour of Linux, what version of Linux etc. and then what have you installed before, will they conflict etc. It's a mess. If you are lu
Commercial software is best for some things (Score:2)
Why run Linux is you can't get the software you depend on to earn your living or keep your company in business? Consider Photoshop and either InDesign or QuarkXPress. Most people posting here don't use those, but every newspaper and magazine depend on them. I imagine there are other equally expensive and indispensable applications out there that are the standard in some business or profession I know nothing about.
The operating system is nothing without applications.
Too many distros. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
The real reason... (Score:3)
When you talk to a Linux user you get the fanaticism of a Mac user with a side of superiority. All you have to do is read through this thread, and this is geeks talking to geeks. All these anecdotes about the horrors of Windows and the technical superiority of Linux just sound like snobbery to people on the outside. Linux remains where it is because it has an attitude problem.
Its all about pre-installs (Score:2)
For the desktop, it all comes down to the fact Windows comes on most desktops and laptops, and most people do not want to install their own OS or switch, because Windows "works fine". Many people dont even know what an OS is not to mention how to install one. So to break into desktop, you have to have pre-installs an sell the hardware and OS as one package.
Also, what would help is some commercial high end RAD development for rapid application development of apps that support an platform independent API like
Linux won on the server (Score:2)
Before, after and during work....
Find the same level of skill for the desktop, GPU and CPU...
Want to do the same on the desktop? make software more easy to code for.
Support that new CPU, GPU and 3d art, sounds....
Make the OS able to get the frame rates of Windows for same game...
The idea of releasing a game on Linux, a free OS that works a well is impressive.
Sell the game with a free OS and boot from the OS on Intel?
Bypass the OS cost of Windows.
Th
Marketing won't sell linux (Score:2)
Want to watch Netflix in 4k on linux? You can't even do it in 1080P. Want to watch Disney+? Not going to happen. Want to play your library of AAA games? They're probably not all going to work. Want to install it on your new laptop? It's a toss up as to whether everything will work. Just bought some newly released hardware? Probably not going to work. Friend raves about some cool program? Probably doesn't work on linux. Got a new piece of hardware or software, can't get it to work and want to call up the com
once you've installed a sizable amount of drivers (Score:5, Informative)
I don't understand this... I never have gone around chasing drivers at least on the hardware I regularly use. Install OS, install my pet apps - geany, anaconda python, nodejs, gimp, nginx, apache, etc and be productive in less than 2 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: once you've installed a sizable amount of driv (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The experience the poster above you describes is for people that do not want to install Linux and hence mess up everything they can. And then ignore all the problem Windows causes and claim there are none.
You cannot get a fair comparison from non-rational people.
Re:once you've installed a sizable amount of drive (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny thing, the only time I have had to chase drivers in the last 20 years was when installing Windows for a customer. I ended up booting Linux from a DVD, mounting the windows partition and downloading the network drivers for Windows. Then I could boot back into windows and install the driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence, the problem. You install "geany, anaconda python, nodejs, gimp, nginx, apache, etc"
What the hell are those? Why do I have to "install" them? "nodejs"? Hell, yeah! Do they carry that at Bed, Bath, & Beyond? And BTW, what is it supposed to do? Do you see the problem yet? You actually stated it perfectly.
Re: once you've installed a sizable amount of driv (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to set up a MythTV box ages ago. Once I found myself troubleshooting MySQL error messages I decided my time was worth more than that.
Re: (Score:3)
Give it up, man. Windows users are like flat earthers: no amount of facts or evidence will sway their opinion.
The main application we use at my company uses an old-style ISAM database (on a Linux server), and the programmers at my company have a process that copies it into a SQL Server database, every week. The database is about 1TB, and the existing process took about 35 hours. A few months ago, we needed to make a change to that process, and I did a proof of concept to make sure the changes were doable. I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they just cripple the OS by removing "legacy" apps. We're doing development on Nvidia Jetson boards at work. One was having DNS issues. Guess what they no longer include? Yes, nslookup is not installed by default.
Re: (Score:2)
They're citing a decade-old meme that had more to do with Microsoft's lock on hardware manufacturers than anything else.
Linux doesn't need a marketing team because it's not marketed. It's built. There is a major difference. Windows needs billions in marketing because it's a commercial product that rewards shareholders. Linux is built because of needed features, not something to hype the market for the next PAID release or support option.
The engineer in the post asking the question is an engineer. I'm an eng
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be misunderstanding the role of marketing. It's not about "making money for shareholders", it's about "getting the word out". Any successful non-profit has good marketing.
With good marketing, Linux would become better known and people would start looking into it. With very good marketing, Linux would start being in-demand. That demand would drive developers to create more, better, and more refined software. Competition would increase, and "the cream would rise to the top".
Redhat makes mone
Re: (Score:2)
Linux is not a company, as you suggest. IBM/Red Hat, Canonical, others, those are marketing companies. They do a fine job.
The way that Microsoft got into many companies and organizations had to do with golf courses, executive lounges, draconian contracts with hardware OEMs, and sports tickets.
Linux has no such protagonists.... although Red Hat and Canonical, among the heavy weights, are doing well.
In the old days, as now, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and it was vinegar that fueled early Lin
Re: (Score:3)
I do not understand you post. I use Linux since 2004 and the sole drivers i had to install are those of my nvidia GPU. It was done trough the OS gui. Easily. Also, if you want beginner advice you should look to a beginner friendly forum and use a beginner friendly distro. On my Intel laptops i installed exactly zero drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
Pop!_OS Just Works on every system on which I've installed it. No driver hacking, no command-line fiddling, no endless tweaking needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree - POP OS is a game changer.
Have been using it for six months and decided I wanted to go over to use their hardware, partly because I believe in what they are doing.
I went to visit them in Denver the other day to pick up my systems - cool set up - great graphics and some people who know what they are doing.
Re: One answer (Score:2)
Windows works straight out the box, Mac works straight out the box, Linux works once you've installed a sizable amount of drivers on an OS that doesn't play nice with your internet connection...
You knpw so little about Windows, I bet you don't even know where to find Device Manager.
Who mods this shit up? (Score:2)
Ubuntu (granted, Poettering/Linux and not GNU/Linux) works right out of the box. With all the hardware. Better than Windows. Despite intense work by MS and certain manufacturers, to starve its driver situation to death. And the software is already there, ore one pick in the package manager away.
Windows takes a lengthy and confusing install, a host of drivers, antivirus, firewall, to be usable, and even basic things like an office program must be manually downloaded and installed like it's 1984, since packag
My experience has been the opposite (Score:3)
I needed a laptop quick, so I went to Walmart and grabbed one. The same model that probably 100,000 other people bought at Walmart. Before installing the OS I needed, I booted it up to make sure the hardware worked. It seemed fine except one thing - the wireless card didn't work. Windows said it needed a driver. Okay no problem, I'll download the driver.
The manufacturer's web site didn't have a driver for that model. I tried the manufacturer of the wireless chip. No luck. Well shit. Can't test it wi
Re: (Score:2)
> Did you use another device to download it? Did you use a Ethernet connection to download it?
Those would be good guesses, but read your own next sentence for the answer.
Re: One answer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hit the above-mentioned walls every time I attempt to work with Linux (any flavor really).
Re: (Score:2)
Could it possibly be because you go into #linux and shout at people? So many others don't report your negative experience. In general, if you exercise normal etiquette, the support you get online is amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
MacOS also doesn't have many games, and yet it still has a sizeable market share despite only running on relatively expensive hardware. Why? because it has a brand that people recognise.
Most people don't play games, and even many of those who do would rather do so on a dedicated games console which is far more convenient than any general purpose platform.
"Simple load go" doesn't always apply to windows either, it's not uncommon for people to have driver problems or incompatibilities, and consoles don't have
Games? (Score:2)
Linux doesn't have any of the tools we need to do our jobs. The best productive software Microsoft/Mac only. Photoshop (and other Adobe products), Visual Studio, 3ds Max, etc. And thats not counting the various internal tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, Blender and Visual Studio Code work great on Linux. I do agree about the others you mention, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Visual Studio and Visual Studio Code are very different software packages with (intentionally?) frustratingly similar names. VSC is written in JS primarily for JS and other scripting languages. VS is a native application written for the C and .NET families. VS complies down to native applications (on Windows, Mac and mobile OSes). VSC is primarily an editor.
I've used both, and vastly prefer VS.
Blender and 3DS have a lot of overlap, but AFAIK, Blender is primarily for animation and less for modelling.
Re: (Score:2)
A relative term. My doctor is a noted osteologist. I banged up my knee pretty badly. He was trying to code the procedures he needed for me (MRI, etc.) and encountered his system's software, which he couldn't figure out. I told him it was a standard SQL database and he just stared at me. I taught him how to grab the header bar and move it to the right to expose more text that defined the codes. Yeah, he may be a dummy to you, but I guarantee you're a dummy to him. If I break another bone I'd rather he set it
Re: (Score:2)
wrong, I use Mac at work and the Mac GUI is far inferior to the good Linux desktops (yes plural). Brings up the wrong choices for directories, is too stupid to even use the 'file' command to see type of file if it doesn't have extension or has weird nonstandard extension, puts Apple's shit in the dock over my choices, doesn't always show all the windows in an apps "window" pull-down...
what a farce,it jumped the shark