Will Linux prevail?
Today marks 25 years since the Linux kernel's creation, done by one man only by the name of Linus Torvalds. To be honest, I didn't think the Linux kernel has been around for that long as I only knew about it just a couple of years ago but I'm glad that it exists anyway, for many reasons. Since its creation, there is now a countless number of distros using it though I'm only familiar with the more well-known Ubuntu, Debian and Linux Mint and obviously, it has evolved over the past recent years.
I've also noticed something remarkable recently... for a long time, Linux had struggled with the market share where it can only be a number just slightly higher than 1% but now, I saw that as of August 2016, it is now 2.11% so it looks like it's becoming more popular now, but will it ever overtake Windows in the near future? Only time can tell.
That's all I can say here for now other than... happy birthday to you, Linux
I've also noticed something remarkable recently... for a long time, Linux had struggled with the market share where it can only be a number just slightly higher than 1% but now, I saw that as of August 2016, it is now 2.11% so it looks like it's becoming more popular now, but will it ever overtake Windows in the near future? Only time can tell.
That's all I can say here for now other than... happy birthday to you, Linux
Comments
Unless MS continue to make catastrophic decisions regarding windows' behaviour and updates as it has been, I doubt it. I've been reading articles about the year of desktop Linux since I was at least 12, and 16 years later it still hasn't materialised.
And lets not forget that there are dozens of distributions to choose from, resulting in even less consistency in terms of usability, interface, software, etc.
So I wish Linux a very happy 25th.
Linux is so simple to use, I don't understand how anybody could ever have an issue using it. I mean Linux Mint basically has THE SAME desktop structure as Windows does.
I would've said something about that but Dosbox has beaten me to it. Although, I have to say that some distros are more geared towards advanced users but there's still plenty for those familiar with Windows and OS X. Why should a completely different OS keep you from using it like you have for what you're used to? That's just insane. And I'll tell you this... I believe anything using the Linux kernel is far more simpler to use than Windows 10, and maybe OS X El Capitan also (even though I don't mind it, and prefer it over Win10 by a long shot). Even for the likes of me who would rather use his computer for surfing the net and organising files. Not what the commoner person does nowadays from using Cortana to needing an online account just to access an office suite let alone use the OS itself.
I only meant that things like installing new applications tend to be a bit more tricky on Linux for the average user (I'm not talking about those who know a bit more about this stuff, I'm really talking the average Joe here). On Windows or Mac you just download an installer package, you run it and there's your program. Or you download it from one of the app stores. Some Linux distros do have things that are similar to app stores, but they have nowhere near the amount of applications that 'commercial' app stores have. If an application has a Linux version (and not all applications do), then it usually has to be compiled from source or installed from the command line, which isn't something that the average Windows or Mac user is used to.
I agree that for people around here Linux isn't difficult to use at all, but it really can be for those that want an easy to use OS out of the box. But that's just my opinion (and has been my experience whenever I introduced others to desktop Linux).
To me, Linux (and some Unix's) are by far the easiest OS that you can use. It's documentation is by far the most complete (depending on the distro) and user friendly. It's easily configure and once you get it to a place that works for you, it will be easy to start working. And by far, from what I have heard from some of my friends who are taking a Windows administration class, Linux is way more easier than having to deal with a Windows 8.1 machine. One more thing, the LPI essentials exam is really easy to pass... :P
I do, however, think Linux's market share will continue to grow and eventually it may find itself competing with macOS. Remember, for as popular as macOS is, they still haven't managed much more than about 5%. The world is a big damn place and most of it runs Windows.
It's been said before, but the basic problem is that people don't install OS's. OEMs do. People buy a shiny new computer when their old one is completely useless and whatever OS it comes with is the one they use. It never even occurs to them that it's possible to install a different OS. Linux needs to capture the pre-install market. Once they do that, they'll find an increase in marketshare. There's been some attempts at this before, but it hasn't worked out too well.
Another issue Linux faces is one of the benefits for tech users... market fragmentation. Oh you run Linux? What distro? Arch? Fedora? Ubuntu? Mint? Something else? There's way too much choice and that confuses and scares normal users.
I agree on this, though haven't a couple of OEMs already done this over the last few years with limited success? If you offer the same machine with Linux and Windows as the OS options, ~95% I'd say would still choose WIndows due to familiarity with the OS and more importantly for their usual applications.
IMHO, commercial developers treat Linux similar to Windows Phone with the exception of gaming. Bring in MS Office and Adobe's suite of products as starters, and Linux would get more traction.
I'd prefer if generally Linux had less distributions to choose from, maybe say a maximum of 3 or 4 (e.g. Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, and Debian) from a user and development point of view.
I'm sorry, but no. You won't be using Linux for very long before you come across a problem of some sort and documentation for OSS software is best described as inconsistent. Some is excellent, some meh, and others are nowhere to be seen. Which will then mean entering the wonderful world of the OSS forum world to find a solution.. Where you will either encounter someone with the social skills of a tree telling you to RTFM, or someone who will try to convert you to using a different program/distro to the one you are using instead of solving your fucking problem in the first place.
https://www.netmarketshare.com/operatin ... imeframe=M
And it's increasing more and more everyday.
Besides that, market fragmentation is still a problem. On Android, each distribution is phone-manufacturer specific, but with Linux? There exists hundreds of distributions and only one of them (Ubuntu) has been preinstalled on computers at some point. Some unified distro is required to fix the whole issue. Also, another problem is how little amount of software exists for Linux. I'm not sure why, but I can imagine the amount of distros could be a problem. And if Microsoft will be promoting the manufacturer's computers in exchange for using Windows, they won't use Linux, because money.
Having said that, I do really hope for a future with Linux taking over Windows. I really don't like Windows because of how buggy it has become. Mac on the other hand I do like, but it still isn't for everyone. Let's all pray for Linux I guess. Maybe Android will adapt into a desktop OS one day, but who knows.
I agree with this 100%, try solving something for Open Indiana when all you have is Solaris based articles that are written by Oracle (which isn't to keen on being user friendly) or an out dated article in the early to mid 2000's. Once you use a distro that has a very small community you will understand. Slackware not being one of them. Try plan9, Solaris, Elementary OS, just to name a few. Then you will see.
Honestly I'm not going to be part of war of whether or not Linux is easy to use. It really depends on your comfortability level with the command line, and whether or not that you like to explore. This is by all, a Windows Forum, that it's main base in old historic software related to Dos, CP/M or windows. I will never try to convert some one to a Linux platform because it all depends on what works for that person.
I agree. Steam was a good first start, but we really need Office and Adobe to make some real headway.
Also, Linux needs to work on battery life when it comes to running on Laptops. Last I tried it, it was not very friendly to my battery compared to Windows on the same machine.
^ This... so very much, this.
Wrong, the average user will never need to touch the terminal. Also, with major distributions, installation and updating are very simple tasks.
There actually is a lot of software on linux, good and easy to use software to be exact. There is no need for a unified distro, since linux was never built on the idea on one size fits all.
Well if you want linux to succeed, spreading misinformation isn't going to help at all.
There's a great alternative to Office known as LibreOffice and compatibility with M$ Office is almost, if not, exactly, 100%.
>great
>compatible
massive, massive keks.
The key answer is - why the fuck should I, as a normie, install Linux, especially if it didn't come out of the box? If I wanted something that just worked, I'd be buying a Mac or a Chromebook by now, or I'm tethered to Windows for compatibility. ISVs are hesitant to support the variety of distros. If they do, they'll usually just support one.
You'll probably need to hit the terminal in the event that you are an edge case - your hardware needs some patching or additional software, you install an app outside of the store, etc.
What is the "friendliest" Linux distro can you recommend to me? And how much gigs are Ubuntu?
Thanks.
Ubuntu's user interface isn't very noob friendly when you compare it to Linux Mint (although Kubuntu or Lubuntu may be fine).
Explain how Mint's security policy is fucked up? Yeah they may hold back some non-essential kernel updates, but some of those updates have the possibility to break things; Plus, you can always change your settings so those non-essential kernel updates can be installed.
Unity is fine. I sat my parents in front of it for a few years (until they needed Windows, for compatibility reasons) and they figured it out.
I know that, but Average Joe doesn't. The problem is you're thinking like an engineer. It's perfectly acceptable to use to use an alternative platform and find new ways of doing things. But users learned to use computers by memorizing a series of steps someone told them one time. If you deviate from the script, they get lost and confused. So when a normal user goes to start a document, they're going to search for Word. Hell, they even refer to said document as a word document. It's what they know and what they're used to.
Also, the key thing for me that LibreOffice and the like are missing is an Outlook equivalent. And before you start talking about Thunderbird, Evolution, and countless others... I've tried them. They all suck compared to Outlook, especially when connecting to an exchange server.
And another thing Linux is missing is a decent RDP client. There's a few to get by, but they're nowhere near as good as the built in client on Windows. Which is pretty much the major theme on Linux... alternative software exists to get by... but it's generally not as good as its Windows / Mac counterpart. Notice that I said "generally" there are some exceptions where the FOSS equivalent is better, but it's a rare breed.