There might be a very simple explanation for why the masses have yet to adopt Linux as their desktop operating system and it's one the open-source community won't like.

I’m curious to hear thoughts on this. I agree for the most part, I just wish people would see the benefit of choice and be brave enough to try it out.

  • db2@sopuli.xyz
    1·
    1 year ago

    To the question it’s clickbaiting you to see:

    The problem is the lack of a representative version of Linux.

    And the response is that Linux is not Windows or OSX. It doesn’t work the same way. The point of 80 gazillion different flavors is that it can be made to be what is wanted or needed. ChromeOS and Android are Linux and I’d argue they both qualify as “desktop” even if Android rocks many phones in mobile mode. If you don’t like sysv init for whatever reason you can find a bunch that don’t use it. Want to install a modern version on a 486? You can with lightweight 32-bit distros, though it’ll be terrible and it means you’re a masochist.

    Possibly because OSX is pretty similar under the hood by its nature as a *BSD derivative, and Windows has WSL which has become pretty good from what I’m told. A casual user may simply not encounter the need to install a whole different operating system on bare metal anymore.

    But I think the reason, special cases aside, is that they haven’t given it an honest try. It’s not the Duplo of operating systems, to get what you’re after out of it you have to actually try, to learn how. It’s easier to give up and go back to what seems to work based on it being the first thing they saw.