Same here. I just thought it was worth mentioning that many pioneers in the open source community frown upon the only OS under the Linux umbrella that I could trust my uncle to use without throwing the computer at a wall. It makes me think about Linux culture - the idea that it is looked down upon for the very fact that it is easy to use. That's kind of the point! :-)
@Pratik Pokharel pretty confident it's ubuntu because ubuntu made large sacrifices to become "more accessible" namely having a default feature that shares data
Apple makes products that come with no manual, that everyone knows how to use. Linux distributions come with thousands of manuals and no one knows how to use it anyway! Forget peripherals. The real reason is RTFM culture. The reality is that consumers do not want to RTFM. I use Linux. I have since 2003, and it's now my main OS. How many people in WIndows have to parse an xrandr command to startup to make their secondary monitor work? Seriously. Linux is not intuitive to the end user.. fix it.
The truth is we just shouldn't have to be doing complex stuff to use a modern computer. It's great if people learn how to do these things, but things like graphical interfaces were designed to make computing EASIER for us, when the majority of Linux use will eventually result in bashing one out in the terminal. That said, on a laptop merely used for web browsing and emails etc, there's no reason why something like Ubuntu isn't more than adequate for day to day use from people of all age groups and abilities, once configured correctly, but with the increase of tablets and smart phones we've seen a shift away from laptops for those basic tasks anyway. That said, 7 years after your comment, Linux has become mainstream in the form of Android, which isn't desktop Linux, but still effective enough to nibble away at Microsoft's consumer market.
@@Metal-Possum Saying Android is a Linux is just the same as saying one of these: PlayStation and Apple (Darwin) are BSDs HTML is programming language Karonese, Pakpaknese/Dairian, Simalungunese, Angkolan, and Mandailingian are Bataknese Chrome OS is Linux Pop and Indie are musical genres Kutai people is either Dayaknese or Malay
It's 2020 and this statement is no longer true. Installing a linux distro is easier than installing windows (no privacy bs questions), drivers are basically not an issue anymore, screens are detected automatically and correctly. And tell to your grandma that "everyone knows how to use". Give people a kubuntu desktop and they'll know 90% of the stuff.
@@Metal-Possum Even as a windows user I'm happy that Android is doing well and better than ever. I think for a long time Microsoft was not serious with its offerings untill shtf and by the time they saw how the world was changing it was too little too late and sadly I was never a fan of the Windows Phone series, I distinctly remember having difficulty trying to install a ringtone in my Lumia phone and I was not please.
I think you are confused. Its certainly one of us that is. Making a bootable USB drive from a bootable ISO image is not 'mounting', if this is what you are suggesting...
Ok real talk, what does any of that have to do with anything? You're talking about mounting ISOs, cool. But Mounting them 'to USB'? What is that even meant to MEAN? You mount devices/filesystems to mountpoints (or usually to drive letters in Windows, though arbitrary mountpoints are possible), including mounting USB devices to mountpoints. What are you suggesting? We mount a USB device with, say, 'mount /dev/sdb1 /usb', and then what? Mount an ISO file to a mountpoint somewhere under /usb/? WHY?
Fortune K *facepalm* What exactly does 'run a USB like it was a CD' mean? And how did we get to this from 'mounting an ISO to a USB'? What you describe sounds like 'putting some files on a USB drive', not 'mounting an ISO to a USB'. Mounting doesn't actually MOVE any files anywhere. Mounting is an abstraction. It allows you to access files from a file system AS IF they existed at the mount point you specify.
No disagreement with Linus. But I would also add this. We have 1000 Distros averaging 10 maintainers. If we had 10 Distros averaging 1000 maintainers. Every one of them would be WAY better than any Windows Desktop. Maybe too much freedom has it's drawbacks.
Not really. I personally think that having freedom is actually worth not being as popular as Windows. I mean, sure, most games will give trouble and so forth, but I can choose, should I wish, to take elements out of these 1000 distros and make a completely new one that does what I want. Maybe its because I'm not quite the average user, but I think having free choice is worth the inconvenience - which usually amounts to playing around with a wine config for a few days
I know you made this post 2 years ago but I just wanted to say, there is a lot of cross sharing. I definitely agree with your point, however software maintenance is much more important than distro management. Distros are just bundles of software but the software projects themselves have maintainers that get pushed to all systems. We have only 4 or 5 desktop environments with 2 of them taking most of the market share. I would say desktop environment functionality is probably the most important thing to non-technical users. Luckily every graphical distro pulls from the same developers of those desktop environments. But your point remains true enough anyway with the Unity fiasco.
Let's take this idea even further. To drive adoption, set reasonable and well-working standards. Example: audio. One audio system that runs on all the hardware, has a mixer; every-day-stuff. And one that is low-latency and high-performance but requires, say, a device driver from the manufacturer.
I would say Pulse and ALSA are pretty closed to standard across all the big distros. There are more options, and thus more fragmentation and confusion for the end user, than like Windows, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Nevertheless, there are clearly frontrunners - Pulse, X11/Wayland, Gnome/KDE. Yeah its a little fragmented, but you trade a small amount of unification for much more choice and diversity.
One thing, that the average user never ever wants to do is to use the terminal. Yes, for me installing my gcc with apt-get is relativelly convenient, but how does it look for the average user? On Windows everything has a graphical installer, you get it from the internet, everything has some kind of gui. How silly does it look for a normal user, that he can not execute a software onlinux right away? Often he has to give executable rights first. If he googles the problem, he will first find many pages about opening the terminal and using chmod. Not only are those console programs bad per se for the average user, they even have extremelly cryptic names. No OS will ever be succesful on the desktop, if you can not do 100% of everyday things through a graphical interface.
MsJavaWolf The thing is, its simply a cultural thing. The command line isnt inherrently worse or harder to learn than a GUI. Its less flashy, yes, but not harder to len. However, like any interface, it can be scary if you have never encountered it before, just like a deskop interface and folder scructures and keyboard shortcuts can be scary to somone who has only used a tablet or smartphone with a touchscreen.
5 лет назад
Peoples are generally stupid! Only few of us are intelligent and we are already using Linux. There is no cure fore that.
I use KDE Plasma 5, it looks good, it feels good, most things can be done through GUI right as in Windows. Default Ubuntu Gnome is not the same thing. Try it and write the answer . Maybe situation is not that bad as you thought.
I totally agree with you. When I started learning Linux 3 years ago I also experienced being ridiculed in the forums. But these days I'm glad that the forums are getting friendlier. In youtube there are lots of tutorials and friendly people. I'm sure those people who are friendly to newbies are former windows users. Hahaha.
@@jocm99 using GNU/Linux in 2005 was no easy task, but 11 years ago was 2012, where we already had lots of good and user-friendly distros (no games and drivers, tho). Nowadays using GNU/Linux is easier than ever.
Thanks to the community and praise be to God that the common Linux distribution is plenty more friendly for average end users than it was 10 years ago.
I think he's right in some ways... however for him to call LInux "incumbent" is not right. The reason Linux is not successful on the desktop is fragmentation and lack of usability. I've been using it for 10+ years and I can't imagine asking someone like my mother, or neighbor to go ahead and run "yum" and install some lib packages so they can read their USB storage device. That's the problem. Lack of usability... Ubuntu is doing some work on this but it has so much more to go...
You know, I remember a time when installing a fresh windows XP for someone was a bitch, because you would need to find the correct network driver which is going to make it easier to install everything else. Ahh, I appreciate all the support that comes from a modern OS install.
9 years later: Steam has launched Proton and various services for gaming and other software were released to Linux. Microsoft Teams is available for Linux and companies such as Microsoft and Apple consider new products to be compatible with it; There's now millions of desktop users utilizing some Linux distributions as their daily driver, some don't even have Windows installed somewhere on their computer. Hehe... 9 years and Linux is technically as capable as Windows, even in areas where it lacked features and/or availability of software before. That's definitely a good thing to have happened. :P
@@EclipseMints08: Well, it hasn't too much to do with Android, actually; Android uses the Linux kernel - but a modified one - with totally different libraries (bionic instead of gnu) 😉 Desktop Linux operating systems work different than Android - and they're providing more freedom than Android ever will 😛 A true GNU/Linux OS for smartphones would be a great thing (and well… proprietary apps run well on the platform, so why not; Facebook, WhatsApp and all those others could work just fine) 😉
I'm with you on the green thing. That's what hibernate and suspend are for, neither of them require a reboot. I have also have a strip under my desk that auto-powers-off everything in the office (monitors, sound system etc.) when it senses the power drain drop from my suspended computer. It likewise turns everything back on when I power it back up.
Biggest issue is: when you look for software, the vast majority will be written for windows, and maybe Mac. Linux is a stretch, and most people don't like hunting down compatible programs
What does the cost of the mics have to do with the OS? I have a Zoom H4n attached to my setup. It works as a USB mic, Line input, and handles phantom power to other mics... works out of the box with Ubuntu 12.04 (my current build). So again, what's your point?
Cause you know, everyone games, everyone uses photoshop, and everyone edits audio and video. Many people just use their computer for the browser and email, and the occasional printing and the like, and Linux can do that quite well, and is less susceptible to software exploits.
For me the reason for Linux's limited success on the desktop will always be due to the lack of commerical companies porting/creating their products either to or for the Linux platform. What we need to see is programs like Adobe CS6 suite, Steam (which is coming), 3DS Max... Also it would be good to see a commercial productivity package like Microsoft Office or iWork on the Linux platform at around £50. My 2 cents! :-)
That's the spirit! I love a bloke who's willing to do it himself. Though I'd wear some pants the next time you strap your camera to the neck of your guitar... ;) Didn't know you worked the vectors. Good for you for expanding your horizons. I look forward to seeing your intros, if you ever have the inclination to add that bit of professionalism to your vids.
Linux people are great at code but horrible at product marketing. Product marketing executives DON'T blame the customer or potential customer. They get the PRODUCT fixed. Until a desktop distro actually gets a competent person in that role, linux will NOT take off on the desktop.
eh, not so sure about apple and microsoft marketing towards "fixing products." Apple: "You are using it wrong, you idiot". Microsoft: Well sorry about the update that deleted all your files and the sound driver not working anymore... LOOK HERE'S A BRAND NEW TRANSPARENT BUTTON!
It has nothing to do with product marketing. It has to do with introduction. Linux devs are good at making stuff for themselves, but they are not good at making it user friendly for people who are sniffing around for Windows alternatives.
Many of them actually suck at code lmfao. Take a look at all the Hassio/OpenHAB/Domoticz garbage implemented in a custom raspbian fork. The code is so crap and the devs are so lazy it's not worth shit. Raspbian morons decided to disable root accounts, and if you happen to screw up your primary account you're fucked. You have no other choice but to wipe the card and redo the installation. Linux is generally pretty good, but there is a lot of shitty bloatware in many distros and program interfacing /install systems aren't that good either. Windows is far better when it comes to visual installers and what not. Linux has turned into a dev environment that isn't friendly to noobs. That's why it's not used by regular users.
If most software and business software goes browser based it"ll be so much easier to do pre-installs on new machines. One thing holding back the business I work for from switching is a proper Silverlight alternative, since that software is swapping to HTML 5 soon there won't be any barriers left for us. So after that hurdle is overcome being able to have a free OS with a custom user experience the way Linux distros and desktop environments offer people will be able to switch without having the compatibility issues we currently have. Compatibility with think like microsoft office will still need to be sorted out too but I'm chromebooks and SteamOS etc will sort that out eventually.
I think you guys underestimate how important this is, definitely not for most forms of software I should probably clarify that I mean specific ones that business' need that could easily be made available to linux users by expanding the already massive move to web based business software. I'm not saying Microsoft Word should be browsers based I'm saying things like Xero in Accounting and Midwinter in my industry are making leaps and bounds in usability and workflow while coming so close to being available on Linux. For example our business could completely switch the moment our CRM & Advice software goes Html5 and we can just use Libreoffice etc I'm sure many other business could do similar.
***** The problem is that what makes mac os good is in part due to its problems. You can't go for maximum stability when you need universal compatibility and one interface is not necessarily ideal for all scenarios. There already are quite a few distributions that are pretty easy to use and don't lack of software in their repositories, much of the same code is compatible across distributions (at the cost of repackaging it at times, but still) so developers don't really need to care about the split userbase as much. The next step towards unification would pretty much mean locking it down and forcing a particular entity's point of view on everyone. While that may help its popularity, most of its current userbase (on the desktop) would ditch it for freebsd or hurd based systems. Many of us choose linux BECAUSE of its variety and the freedom of customization it offers, not despite it.
Up Up You pretty much described Debian and Red Hat. The problem is that linux users want the choice. In a way, the linux world already adopted Debian as a de-facto "standard", since most software that supports linux will be developed with Debian (or its derivatives) in mind, but the additions every distribution makes can and will break compatibility with stuff even if the "core" is the same. Just look at how new windows releases, which strive for retrocompatibility and change relatively little, still have compatibility problems at times.
The original unix grouping system was quite powerful, but didn't allow finer rights management (like giving exclusive access to a folder to 2 persons from diffrent groups). That's why ACL were introduced. Managing an active directory is not that difficult if you've correctly organised your groups, users, gpo... It's all in a mmc, what I like about windows, no need to go cli or config file. With Linux, did it a while ago dont remember well, think you had to type setfacl and tweak smb.conf...
I've used ubuntu for years, but finally went for mint because its ubuntu but saves 30 minutes on the install because you don't have to set up the most common software (works really well 'out the box'). Best thing to do with linux is, get it just how you want it at the start, then don't mess! (except for new software)
Actually it can be much easier to use than windows. For example the newest ubuntu is very easy to use. From time to time you should start the update manager and you should install the restricted extras. But after this the System is very easy to use and if you got a problem you can use the terminal to identify it (you can look the commands up). You don't get cryptic error-messages. Also you can navigate much faster through your system and use four workspaces.
Too many Distros with their own quirks and package managers, etc to ever gain a large market share. Windows for all it's flaws is nearly uniform across the world.
@@blackplaydoh3522 Eh not in the desktop market but in the server market it does have SCCM (System Center Control Manager). That has a package manager. A package manager ultimately is just a simpler method of installing software. When it comes to software and Windows it depends on use case. Some users are fine with out of the box (or mostly out of the box) configurations whilst others depend on larger support of many different software installation/maintenance.
The coolest part of this video was when he explained that hardware is so cheap that we will have different devices for different tasks, which is more effective than having one ALL powerful desktop that does all tasks.
@@jerrybrown6169what they said did kind of happen though. You can get dirt cheap tablets and phones nowadays, even very cheap netbooks / chromebooks. At the very least, its now reasonable for someone to own multiple computing devices, such as a smartphone, desktop / laptop computer and tablet. I remember in the early 2010s, Iphones had existed for a while but smartphones like those hadnt really become necessary for doing anything.
Google Ubuntu 11.10 port. Go to the XDA page and find the thread. Go to page 87. There is Ubuntu 13.04 with gestures.. on an HP Touchpad. With wine running qemu.
I am a web developer. I was a windows user since 90's. 2 years ago became a linux user and installed Ubuntu because of its popularity. But still it wasn't rock solid stable. When I googled there were too many distros and desktop environments. Looking at the Linux distros timeline, root level linux distros are good to use. This month moved to Debian OS because it is a root level and rock solid stable distro. All root level (Alpine, Arch, Debian etc..) linux operating system developers should work together creating an ultimate linux operating system, rather than putting their efforts on creating different linux distros.
Well, that would be difficult because then people won't like its design for example you just cannot set .deb as default since other people wants arch package, But yeah, there is no "default" Linux OS. all have their own philosophy.
That's great to hear! Myself, I was a Windows user since early childhood. Grew up with DOS and Windows 95 and - for the longest time - figured Windows to be the best thing since sliced bread. Then I found Ubuntu. No more trawling manufacturer pages for drivers. No more dealing with having to reformat my hard drive and reinstall everything after a year or less. Ubuntu simply worked. I'm writing this post from my laptop, running Kubuntu 12.04 LTS. Never been happier.
@@davidmella1174 lol yep, it's sure come a long way since then (though I've been using Slackware and/or openSUSE since a couple years after that comment, lol).
He predicted right, most of the things we want to do are being done in browser itself, including but not limited to Google docs, even online version of Microsoft office, nowadays Adobe tools are online accessible
The complexity would revolve around how many of the "usual" OS entry mechanism, such as traps and interrupts, in windows, are used for something different in Linux. Also, recognizing the source of a "trap" that is used in both OSes, is a problem spot too. Virtualization of the OS "space" helps because then you know that everything happening in the virtual "space" is about supporting MS, or even a specific driver. That actually simplifies things.
Yes, it's a constant struggle for catching up for open source drivers, contrary to Linux ability to rapidly evolve, but the software and desktop environment remain issues too and that continues to drive fragmentation with no one distro really garnering a usable majority that would help with making a coherent push into the desktop market. Having tons of distros to choose from may be great for users with different preferences but it's a nightmare for companies having to support their products.
@@SatanIsTheLord No, but you're definitely a troll for commenting on something that was posted over 10 years ago. Nothing back then is relevant now! Get a life!
Actually, that link is down below. I missed my ctrl-c and recopied the link from earlier. Thought I'd correct it rather than just leave it. It's a really good sample of a live performance, jamming along with lmms, rakarrack, etc. which as an "expert" you probably know isn't easy to do. Sorry you didn't enjoy it, but it wasn't really for you anyway. You're quite right that I'm a noob. No one has complained about the audio quality of my work thus far, so I'd consider that "good enough".
Linux is not successful because of the endless re-inventing the wheel. Endless forks. Did I mention the sheer number of distros. If all these uni-ideologist developers stopped and focused on a few products, mankind would have colonized Mars by now.
Well! Times certainly have changed! Widows scrooged everyone and the floodgates have been open ever since ! I run ZERO Windows, I quit all at once, wiped out ALL windows remnants from my hard drive went to Linux Mint KDE and never looked back since June last year! In September I built my own Ryzen / Linux Mid Tower desktop and I'm in heaven! Happily trying out different wonderful distros and learning new things every day! What a super experience! Anyone on the fence should really just go for it!
nvidia doesn't give a shit about linux. Except if gamers move to linux. They didn't even helped the community to build open source drivers. AMD did help the community, it's not enough tho but it still possible to get a very good support on the near future. We will see with Vulkan...
Reading through the replies right now, the limitations of Linux have really changed. Now its relatively easy to use and has tons of software support. Beyond gaming, most people can get everything they need done on a computer running Linux. The biggest issue now is, how do you encourage people to use Linux? Currently its now word of mouth, or from people looking up ways to get their old computers to keep working. Im not even sure how this issue can be approached. How do you get people to feel comfortable leaving the default behind, or even get them to know alternatives exist? Windows has become so standard that even back in the 90s it was incredibly difficult to encourage people to swap from it. Even an incredibly easy to use and relatively lightweight Linux distro like Mint, which is even more stable and beginner friendly than Windows, cannot get past this barrier. How does an open source project funded mostly by donations get its name out there?
People today buy desktop either for gaming or productivity, less for browsing and internet apps - all people have smartphones, tablets for that already. Desktop is slowly dying or rather niche-specializing. You can't expect gamers to switch to Linux soon, neither content creators - all the ecosystem of apps and stuff is Windows based, not that they prefer Windows - clearly it have become worst over the years, but they are trapped and don't really have a choice. The normies who use PC just to enter a browser, to watch a videos and pics and write an email - If you swap Windows or MacOS with Linux - probably 90% of them won't even understand what's the big difference. But the big portion of those people also don't install their OS.
It's actually better than I thought; the 'make our own standards' plain Jane Ubuntu works right out of the box for me. But I have trouble with my main task: after months of trying, I have [not] succeeded creating a reasonable workflow for my digital processing (images from RAW NEF.) I can do almost any other thing, but without re-training, the best i can do, and do pretty easily, is to install a VM and do in the programs I know in that other OS. That is partly a problem with the programs, distro, linooks and me....
Happy 14th birthday! Glad you are maturing. The deal is, that WINE is a library of code that the application is bound to. The windows Driver API, includes things that the OS does for the driver, and things that the processor and kernel do in response to driver and hardware actions. That's the level of interface that Linux needs to provide. I don't want to have an argument about this. I've done software for 30+ years, including OS and driver development in UNIX/Linux. I don't do Windows...
Linux is pretty versatile, you can really do whatever you need to do with it if you know the system. I think if desktop users set aside time to learn it, they could make it into whatever fork does what they want. However no one wants to do that, they all want to get on Facebook and look at cats, or sometimes they just want to get their spreadsheets done or play games. There _are_ Linux distros built for gaming (SteamOS etc etc) and there are a few for casual desktop users that just use Word or some other business program, and the Libre Office software is not a bad solution for those people... I get my point still stands, Linux can do whatever you need it to do nowadays.
Well, let me give you just one reason. A couple years ago I installed the latest version of Debian stable. I wanted to install the latest version of Gimp as well and found this was not possible without some enormous updates in the operating system. So, for fun I decided to give it a whirl and see what would happen. Long story short, aptitude pulled down dependency after dependency, hundreds and hundreds of megs worth. Finally, it broke the system. So I fire up my old copy of Windows XP. An operating system that was over a DECADE old. A couple service packs installed, but no big deal, these were published years and years ago. There is no long story to make short, the latest version of Gimp installed and worked perfectly. Immediately. Linux will take a giant leap forward by losing some of the most backwards things about it, and one of the things on top of that list should be the asinine system of having everything being overly dependent upon everything else.
I never had issues like that, but that's maybe to me using Ubuntu-based distros. To me, any other kind of distro besides Arch sucks. :P That said, yeah the whole "packages depend on each other" ideology is backwards, and it only helps people with small storage. I heard though Ubuntu is adding something soon called Snappy packages soon, that use the Snappy package manager. That's great, because the biggest advantage to Snappy packages is that each program has their own libraries included and separate from the OS, like Android's .apk's and Windows' .exe's. That means dependency hell is less likely to happen. Also packages are sandboxed as well, like .apk's and Chrome apps. I hope soon others adopt it as well.
I don't know if Debian was your first distro but I don't recommend it to newbies. I went through the same stuff you did and it wasn't even my first distro (third I think). Debian is the distro that takes the longest to update it's stable branch, and using unstable is not recommended. Sincerely nowadays I recommend using Mint. It's the most user friendly distro I've used since the early days of Ubuntu.
Christian Engholm Nah I started in 2006 with Fedora. It was called Fedora Core at the time. I switched to Ubuntu though, after fighting dependency issues in Fedora. Ubuntu just worked, and that was what I wanted. It is now my main Linux OS. However, I do use other distros from time to time. I wouldn't recommend Debian to a linux newbie either. Generally I only use Debian stable as a web server OS these days. I haven't used Mint yet, but I want to sometime soon. Cool to hear about it, thanks. @RoundDuckMan, snappy sounds very very interesting.
Carlos Jorge And Thats the reason why linux will never advance. "You are doing things wrong. No you were supposed to do *insert my preferred overcomplicated method here*" That's exactly the issue. Why doesn't it JUST WORKS? As the original poster said and you are not paying attention. Even an old BUT WELL maintained system of windows could handle it on it's first try. Why is it that linux can't without having to pull a freaking terminal? Linux is dead. It's a niche for IT specialist. I can't possibly write a professional resume in libreoffice AND be able to be opened without issues in Microsoft word. It'll open... but the min the recruiter sees it you'll end up in the no call garbage list.
I don't know if you've been following Win8 development, but there's already been 2 "betas" out : - dev preview - consumer preview Exept for the Metro apps who were light years from ready to ship, the rest of the system quite impressed me. It's as stable as 7, with a ridiculous cpu/memory load. Runs ok (not fast but ok) on a p4/1GB ram ! Also, I'm the kind of geek who likes new stuffs. Like when the eeePC first came out, I immediately went to buy one... then format Xandros and install XP :)
i use linux because i am computer science student . people who love to code , like understand the system only uses it. so do I because it teaches me,, it act like my teacher. others, get tired of bug it creates while installation.and its command line features,popularity depends on user.
My first exposure to Linux was around 1996 too. The installation required understanding the hard disk geometry (cylinders, sectors) and partitions. I gave up. Then I gave Linux another try in 2000. It was much easier but it didn't recognize some hardware including the CDROM ! I gave up. Then, in 2009, I tried once again. It was good by then. It didn't automatically detect the network cable (so not the internet). I used Linux occasionally. Since 2015, I use Linux every day. What a delight! I give praise to the thousands programmers and developers for their devotion to open source.
Linux doesn't make any sense for 99.99% of all end-users who don't know much about computers. If at any given time you have to do something on the command line, you're out of the desktop market. period.
@@Anaximander29A I agree. Linux is a concept, not a product. This explains the numerous distros. Windows.is a product. Computer manufacturers aren't going to preinstall Linux for that reason. I enjoy the alternatives offered by Linux. As you point out, most end-users don't care about that.
Linux has very little value added. It can't natively run the hugely popular applications like Adobe CS, QuickBooks, Office, etc., that millions of businesses depend on. Add the costs of retraining and support and you have a non-starter for most smaller businesses in North America. As for home users, there is simply no compelling reason for most of them to switch. Everybody got the Windows 10 upgrade for free, and anything with a valid Win7 COA can still get it free. There is no cost issue. Windows today is rock solid stable on quality hardware, updates itself, repairs itself, can reset itself and can run literally 9 million applications. Linux exists in a thousand obscure incompatible distributions that come and go like leaves in the wind, and support consists of browsing forums where the helpful hobbyists call you retarded because you're not using the magical distro they are. Is it really a mystery that there is no desktop Linux market? Linux has spent 25 years fighting itself, and not competing with anything.
@@1pcfred You're right, I'm retarded. I must be. I have no idea why systemd pegs 4 of my cpus at 100% with no windows open or application started. Windows idles my system at around 3-5% activity...WITH applications open. Linux needs 15% of my 12 cores to show me a blank desktop...but it's Windows that is the bloated resource hog...right? I install Steam to play some of the games I own, only to find out most of them aren't functional in a Linux environment. I set up WINE to play my two favorite games...oops, they don't even install. Never a virus or intrusion in 20 years of using Windows, but I decide to download Mint a couple years ago because I heard how great the new version was, oh shit, some amateur fuckin' hacker from buttfuckania has hacked their server and replaced the ISOs with ones he modified...so my passwords get harvested. Total amateur hour. MintOS? They should have called it AmateurHourOS. With Linux, it's ALWAYS something. Always. Hardware doesn't work. Apps don't work right. GUI glitches. Printing? Bwahahahaha😂😂😂😂😂.
@@guyonearth I feel you. But we need to understand that software and hardware compatibility are a different stories. I mean you tried to install windows software on a linux based distro, its like installing a motor fod v8 gas engine on boeing plane; wine tries something very diffiult to achieve, and to some degree achieves the goal, now you have proton on steam! Try to install a tar.gz on windows.
Integrated cards are often supported, but (at least until every recently) there are/were no drivers to my knowledge that provided 3d acceleration using high-end cards, especially nVidia (my laptop has nVidia). I've played games with wine too, but until we get support so that high-end cards, it'll be hard to play new games like AC3 on Linux.
As far as I can see, the biggest problem for Linux entering the desktop market is there is no publicity for it. You can't really buy a "linux laptop" at your local best buy, walmart, etc and there is not way for average people to learn about Linux unless they somehow stumble upon it or have a friend who already knows about it. Chromebooks have helped linux get to that point, and I think a lot of users are beginning to see the value of a cheap laptop designed for operating linux, but unfortunately chromebooks are just not there yet. Chromebooks only offer android internet-only applications. They are basically the chrome browser packaged as a laptop. How many users of Android actually know that Android runs on Linux? Probably not as many who know that it isn't "an apple phone" rather than those who know it "isn't running iOS." That is the significant difference between an average user and the users Linux targets. If we could have redhat/fedora laptops or Ubuntu laptops in stores, like we have chromebooks, with publicity online and commercials for them on TV then I think Linux would quickly see a larger desktop market than it has now. What's nice though, is that despite this, because linux is free, easy to install, and supports quite a lot of hardware, Linux actually does have a decent amount of desktop users. It could obviously have significantly more though, and I think the best place to start is publicity.
You don't have to do that most of the programs are recompiled because therein lies improvements in code such as bug fixes and security. The key here is that unless you are using an obscure thing that you have have to DIY and can't find another program or driver for it to work, you are in the same boat as before with anything else ie. windows. Best thing is you don't end up with bloatware where your initial os install is 12Gib with programs and software and demos you probably won't ever use. By the time updates and patches are over and done you end up with a 50Gib monstrosity of an os. This is opposed to a fully functional os at a paltry 3Gib.
Linus would make a great "peacetime CEO". Very laid back, sober, unimpededly honest and hands on in every respect. I do think he will be a household name in less than a decade.
@@aakksshhaayy I believe that Elon will acknowledge him soon in a big way. Linus created a peacetime weapon of a Kernel. The latest MS/Apple OS's are quite terrifying. :)
I'm afraid I'm referring to an incident just a couple of days ago, which was done on a modern distribution of Ubuntu. I don't know why it had errors, I just went into the software centre and hit install and it started throwing up dependencies I needed to satisfy.
This is the real issue, actually. (Glad to see someone else mentioned it) Windows ships on most computers, so people just use that. Mac also ships on some computers, hence it also has a sizable market share. But to get Linux at all, you have to install it onto your computer yourself, which completely terrifies most people. I think as very tech-literate people, we underestimate just how little most people understand (or care) about how computers work.
@@pmxi That's exactly my point. If there were Linux computers sold, I'm pretty sure a fair amount of people would happily just use that. It might even end up doing better than Windows since it runs better on lower end (and thus cheaper) hardware than Windows does.
I think it's the other way around. The OEMs pay Microsoft to install Windows in their machines. It doesn't make sense if it were the other way around since Microsoft would be making nothing. That being said Microsoft does have a pretty shady history of trying to kill the competition at all costs like threating companies if they also provide pcs with Linux preinstalled.
@@heart_break1 Yes. I do include the Apple computers... Obviously. My point is, you can buy a computer in a shop that has MacOS preinstalled (i.e. buy an Apple) and you can do the same with a computer with Windows preinstalled (a multitude of options). But you can't buy a computer in a shop with Linux preinstalled. Until that changes, Linux won't get traction with non-techy people.
I just installed it. It has the nicest looking interfaces of any previous distro that I have used. I set it up to look just like my Windows desktop and it is a close fit. I ran ran Google Chrome Browser, Netflix, Audible Manager, Watched a movie on VLC, Downloaded a torrent....all pretty much right out of the box.
Paraphrasing: Microsoft is doing too good a job, we can't catch up with them, fortunately people are changing their habits so maybe we won't have to. And I like Linus... :(
This is a good paraphrase but it would be even better to consider WHAT Microsoft is doing too good a job at. I think the answer is that they get device manufacturers to always develop Windows drivers for all their devices. There are a number of reasons why this doesn't happen with Linux, but I would say none of them likely have anything to do with how capable the OS itself is.
Linux has not attacked the desktop market properly. Linus is seeing the market incorrectly and continues to define the issue in this fashion. He is suggesting that you have to build drivers and support for "everything" to get this working. This is suggesting that peripherals came BEFORE the desktop, and this is simply incorrect. In order to get a market, you have to get to a critical mass of install base by having the desktop go after the "big 10" things a desktop does for people. Linux has never been able to achieve this due to the most simple issues: VIDEO Drivers, WIRELESS, SOUND, BLUETOOTH, VIDEO CODECS and so on. Though many of these simple issues have gotten to the point of "functional", they still miss the optimizations and continue to be wrought with problems. And thanks to Ubuntu and other distros for fragmenting the hell out of the desktop manager. Many app devs do not wish to continuously build graphic interfaces to the cornucopia of desktop libraries. In 2016, Linux should have about the same, if not more desktop share that APPLE does, yet it doesn't. This is due mainly to the DESKTOP manager AND its inability to EASILY install software with a shortcut to the product. If you get gamers on your side, it is literally---game over for apple. Microsoft will be around for quite some time yet, but Linux COULD be a major player in the desktop market. Once critical mass is achieved, then the peripheral market will actually make drivers for their products.
I disagree with your point about Apple and gamers. If Linux takes long enough (say, 2-3 years) to get gamers, it will be too late for anyone to switch from Apple's ecosystem. Most people using Apple desktops/laptops use more than just that one Apple device. They use multiple to reap the benefits of the integration between their devices. This is something Linux cannot (and never intends to) substitute. For this reason I don't think Linux will ever be much bigger on the desktop than it currently is, since Apple will continue to attract that market (and anyone who becomes dissatisfied with the direction Windows is going in will more likely switch to Apple's ecosystem than Linux's).
mfred240 You must disagree with actual historical fact. But that's ok. It is strange that you lead with "apple". But ok. Anyway, my point was HOW, not IF. I don't expect Linux to amount to a hill of shit for the desktop, peripheral or gaming market. (For the very reasons I pointed out). As far a "Microsoft switching to Apple's ecosystem" ...that is utter rubbish as the "Digital DNA" ecosystem was actually designed by Microsoft (Brainchild of Bill, himself over 14 years ago when ipods were still text based with a thumb wheel and the pocketpc was an actual windows interface GUI) in which Apple is doing EXACTLY that. Anyway. I think its safe to say we agree about linux really not amounting to much as far as desktops go.
I would disagree with you. Actually, talking hardware, Ubuntu is likely to support most of the common hardware better than Windows. There is no need to download drivers for let's say FTDI USB to serial cable as latest Windows still does. It is at least surprising for me to see that the misconception about Linux is still strong alive. Linux community disagreed with the manufacturer close-source driver policy and forced hardware manufacturers to publish their driver source, Linus to Nvidia is another famous moment of him. This is somewhat understandable, it is virtually impossible to publish a binary-form driver that will suit all distros. In non-desktop area, close-source driver is far more acceptable. Desktops market is sharply declining somewhat like 5 to 10 % per annum and is transforming. Desktop will sooner or later serve a single purpose: the machine at work . So for the corporate world, there are some priorities that Linux still can't cover: ability to run certain applications traditionally made for Windows, like Office, Autocad, etc. Linux alternatives for these apps, sometimes great for home users, won't fit professionals expectations. Corporate users also need support, somebody to call and blame if something goes wrong, and consistent updates, they have no time to hack around. In Linux, even free and secure, there are no such things. In top of this, "normal" home users want to play games so why would they switch to an OS that offers basically the same thing as Windows but throws away the gaming capability from the very beginning ? In the dedicated machine and embedded area, the efforts done especially in the kernel and drivers area are highly appreciated. Don't know, but there are success stories like MacOS and Android that originated from *nix world and, compared to Linux might sow out what Linux missed to became a great OS. Maybe the GNU part is dying, maybe the office OS won't even matter as everything will move to the thin client paradigm. In today's world, the hardware DOES matter again, the speed, hardware acceleration, power consumption, especially for mobile terminals and new revolutionary areas like IoT, wearables. There are lot of IPs to put into silicon and drivers, hard to believe that OEMs will publish them to satisfy the Linux community, so there won't be any soon a Linux distro to work on all phones and tablets. It looks much easier and probably more profitable for HW manufacturers to fork Linux into a dedicated, well suported OS for their cutting edge HW. This has been done traditionally by third party companies like WindRiver or Mentor Graphics who offered commercial Linux, but now it looks like every silicon manufacturer must be offering its own Linux and Android OSes in a form of BSPs, bootloaders, kernels and toolchains optimized for their silicon so I think this process will continue as will become harder and harder to sell the silicon without offering these for free.
Ah, my VIDEO Drivers, WIRELESS, SOUND, BLUETOOTH, VIDEO CODECS and so on all work just fine, and dandy here. What is a desktop manager? I've heard of a display manager, and desktop environments too. Developers can use whatever libraries they want. They do not have to support all of them, or even any of them. But in reality today everything is either GTK, or QT. The two libraries also work very well with each other. Believe it, or not, gamers are a very small segment of the market. Steam has many titles for Linux. All anyone really needs is XBill anyways.
That's Unity search engine. Have you tried gnome? sudo apt-get install gnome-desktop, then log out and back into gnome desktop. No amazon searches, more screen realestate, and multi-screen expo using the Super button. Gnome is also more friendly with compiz, but honestly, gnome adopted most of my favorite compiz tweaks, like scale (expo) on Mac os
I love Linux. But Linux is not successful as a desktop OS - not because of the OS itself. It's the fact that the individual programs that run on it are not aggressively marketed like the software that runs on Windows. For instance - everyone has heard of photoshop. But who has heard of the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP)? We always talk about airbrushed models being 'photoshopped'. Everyone uses 'Microsoft Office', yet there are many other perfectly capable open source office suites (Openoffice, LibreOffice etc). That's the money spent on marketing. Open source software is often plagued with uninspiringly named, blandly presented and poorly marketed programs. They do the job, but the overall marketing and 'corporate gloss' is missing. I find this plain approach refreshing, but most people expect a certain level of salemanship and presentation. Basically, they believe the hype.
Its because you guys keep doing and sharing these things for free instead of getting it patented & marketing it. Most smart software programmers market through microsoft, which is why most of them are millionaires. Microsoft is smart, Apple is trying, but in order for Macs to run all software they yet have to install windows via- bootcamp. Windows works with everything, unlike apple and linux, microsoft actually has programming titans under its belt.
JoeOnWoW If you consider Android as a linux-based platform, its does have great apps that could replace most of jobs you can do on Windows. For example, Photoshop now can be replaced by other apps in which normal users can happily edit their own pictures within few taps. Windows is a must-have os for those who need ***specific softwares***. For normal user, with number of apps rising in Android, if we can re-use android app easily in a linux distribution, it would be great for them, also a serious threat to Microsoft.
***** That's kind of like saying "The reason you Abolitionists aren't successful is because you don't embrace slavery." You kind of miss the entire point of Free Software if you think its success is measured financially and predicated on "getting it patented & marketing it." Or are you just trolling?
IchthysGuy Success in this instance is by % users using the Linux desktop, which is way smaller than either Microsoft or Apple. And your slavery parallel is a strawman logical fallacy. I present my view based on hundreds of similar conversations, where the same criticisms of Linux desktops abound... That is - people can't run their chosen proprietary software on it. And don't give me the 'wine' excuse. Wine works on simple windows programs like text editors and IE, but try to make it run something advanced like photoshop, and you will be disappointed. My point still stands. It is not the kernal or UI itself that is deficient. For Linux to take bigger % of desktop installations, it is the other software that needs to be better, or Linux needs to get better at running windows software.
I have one problem with all linux distros. I can't change the scrolling speed of my scoll wheel on my mouse. How hard can it be to implement that? c'mon
Having to use Terminal at some point is a killer for most users today. You can go on with windows and never use command promp at all. Linux demands terminal usage.
@@davidmella1174 the only thing why i keep windows dualbooted is the poor software support from companies. if more people use linux, we get better and more compatible software and it would result in many people switching to linux.
Linux is not successful because of the Linux community. You do not listen to regular users and what their complaints are. Instead you blow them off and tell them they are stupid for not seeing thing from your perspective. Then there are those of you who do know and do not want linux to be popular so joe six pack can't use it, or maybe it is because they feel as though they have some sort of superiority over others because they know something the rest do not. It seems the Linux community has no concept of what supply and demand is, because if you did, this would not be an issue right now. There is also the constant change/ updating - Most people do not care if they are using the same Kernal for 3 years, they care about a system that runs all their programs the way they want to. Quit it with the bleeding edge crap, that is why Win XP was so loved and missed. Too much regressions (both in the kernel and in user space applications) when things which used to work break inexplicably, some of regressions can even lead to data loss. Basically there is no quality control. Well that is not all, but I will leave it to just this for now.
Paul Langton-Rogers For starters I never said windows was better, I am pointing out why linux sucks. Just because one points out that one product sucks does not mean they like the rival. Now with that out of the way, you talk about " which means many eyes and brains see it across the world with a multitude of talents and discipines, not just a limited pool of people in one company org. " Yeah that sounds good in theory, in real life you also get a lot of trolls and d-bag hipsters who need to put others down and keep others down. One thing I have learned from the internet is there is more bad information than good and if you want to put that to the test then please go take a subject such as law and take what garbage you learn from the internet and go speak to a good lawyer, you will be surprised my friend. All I have to say is gamers have been waiting how long for steam OS? Steam OS from how I see it should steal customers from microsoft but yet it is still unstable. It still has problems that makes it still in beta (and there is professionals who are being paid to make this thing great). Honestly I hope they succeed because I don't like how microsuck charges 400 for a copy of windows 7. But on the same token, I do need an OS that is going to run my programs properly without me having to waste time (time is money, see there is that supply and demand thing again) on making my OS do what windows automatically does, and not having to worry about learning shit to type in the terminal.
While I do agree with most of what you're saying. I think part of the reason why I - and I assume others like me - prefer GNU/Linux over any other operating system is precisely because the kernel keeps changing. Its precisely because it is customizable - and as a side effect unstable. Of course, you are completely right in the sense that switching to a linux based OS can be daunting for the non-technical user. But, if I'm being completely honest, if the distro I'm using becomes a Windows-like OS that 'just works' instead of giving me the full range of customization that I desire, I'll just switch to something else - or even write my own. Just my personal opinion on the matter tl;dr Fully agree with what you're saying, but for some of us the constant change and almost limitless customization is a part of the attraction, even if we need to endure a few bugs or tweak a wine config for a few days to get a game to run
You think Microsoft does listen to customers ? See what they did with Windows 8 and the Start menu that just worked like Gnome worked before they started to sniff glue and say "fuck the users, who cares but us ?". Look at what Microsoft is doing with Windows 10 and both the way they push updates or grab personnal data by using fixed IPs without DNS resolution and going directly to the kernel and network card, bypassing any firewall or anything on its path. Windows 10 is on the verge of being no longer allowed to be sold in Europe and in France because of this...
I have never had package installation issues (minor hardware issue on a laptop, easily fixed). Gone are the days of dependency hell, at least for distros with a good package managing system. I have a windows partition w/ REAPER and Notion for composition, but I would rather keep my Ubuntu (or Sabayon if I feel more like it) partition w/ native GIMP, Inkscape, and LilyPond for raster/vector editing and music engraving, thank you very much.
I believe the main reason that Linux based OSs are not more mainstream is simple. Windows has been around a lot longer and it is pre-installed on nearly every machine at the factory level. For this reason Windows in the public mind has become synonymous with computing. Changing this is always going to be an uphill battle. I personally like to use a Linux based OS. It took time and effort for me to make the conversion though. The majority of normal consumers are not willing or, have no interest in using anything than what came with the machine. Booting, up their computer and having an OS that is just there is more than adequate. The poor performance and security issues associated Windows are just acceptable annoyances. It is an absolutely brilliant strategy by MS. It is also fair to say that most people don't know or don't care that the majority of problems with Linux OSs are with the vendors and not with the OS itself. To the consumer, Linux can't do this and that and it is a shortcoming of the system.
no. windows has always been bigger b/c they never gave anyone a reason to learn another operating system. Ty for making 8 and increasing competition. ;)
C++ is used for simple scripts to, for example an arduino project. I know what assembly is: 001 011 011 111, and it can be viewed as characters or hexadecimal numbers. my calc does support C and C++, and I've installed some apps on it.
Er Ardour too. You said it crashes lots on your machine, but I haven't seen anything about the quality of the input or output being better or worse than Pro Tools. So I don't know? Is that a good enough answer?
Yes, but how much does Android ACTUALLY support? That's what Linus is talking about. An Android phone only supports every app in the Google Play store and is therefore great for phones since people don't tend to do much advanced stuff on them. But when it comes to desktops they need to support LOADS of software for specific printers like Linus said, games, productive software etc. Linus isn't talking crap about his own kernel because it's flourishing with Android for example but it simply doesn't have the support for desktops that it needs to be successful.
Android is a fork that happened 12 years ago. Torvalds has nothing to do with Android, Google controls it for their own agenda. They will drop it when their own OS is ready.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
true, i'm on the edge of switching completely, i'm a big computer lover but i also game on my pc which is the only reason i haven't switched, but with steam4linux that will hopefully change
Yeah, Proton 6 is pretty good. Even games made BY MICROSOFT, such as Age of Mythology, run just fine on my PopOS machine thanks to Steam Proton. Indeed pretty nice.
In is not successful on desktops, firstly because it was originally written by geeks for geeks, and secondly because Unix belongs to the world of TTYs and dumb terminals. It is ill suited to the world of the internet and GUIs, where the "everything is a file" idea becomes (to put it politely) a bit strained.
So the most widely deployed server OS's (Linux, FreeBSD) and the most prolific user-facing OS's (Android, Chrome OS, OSX) are all Unixes, despite Unix being "ill suited to the world of the internet and GUIs?"
GenericRubbishName The magical word is "free". It is a lot cheaper to use code which is in the public domain than it is to write your own. OS X has been considerably more successful at hiding its Unix roots than Linux has.
Not suited for the internet, yet 90% of the internet infrastructure runs on Linux? Linux / Unix is built for networking and multiple users from the ground up, because original unixes were not for personal computes at all. Unlike for example Windows, where internet was originally an afterthought, that then resulted in the massive security/virus problems in late 90's and early 2000's, because the original windows system was not meant for internet use. Apple's OS X and iOS are also unix based, and yet they are considered one of the easiest systems to use.
The magical word is "business model" that each company has. It's also not only about using, but also about returning own improvements for others to use. A lot of companies are contributing to the development of the Linux kernel, that has resulted to the fact that the kernel is a very good and high quality product, so good that even microsoft uses linux in their cloud services today. It is one way to manage risk, by basing your product on software that is not dependent of a 3rd party, and each of these companies benefit of the deal by building the kernel together instead of that each party building their own.
wopmf4345FxFDxdGaa20 Unix was originally written in assembly language, in the late sixties, when there was no internet, and rewritten in C, in the mid seventies, when there was still no internet. I can remember, as you perhaps cannot, when "internet" communication meant using a dial up modem to directly phone somebody up. You are right though, that Unix was originally a command line operating system, Whereas Windows was architectured from the ground up as a GUI system. By the way, I once saw a cash machine rebooting itself, and it wasn't Linux it was booting. Guess which operating system it was. Windows has virus problems because, if somebody wants to make a nuisance of themselves, it makes more sense to target the 97% of machines which are running Windows than the 3% which aren't
#1 reason for me is inconsistency and lack of rules and regulations in design and behavior. Many OS UI elements are random, dont match one to another. Its hard to navigate having to learn each different UI because different idiot coded it. Dialogs tend to have buttons in random places. Window controls have X on right and left, sometimes not there at all just to spice things up. Thats why. Otherwise i would love to give windows a week long run. Typically i die after 2-3 days unable to take random nonsense any further
Open Office was made by Sun Microsystems, before it was bought by Oracle. Have you tried Libre Office? Not sure exactly what you are looking for, but might be worth a try. I wouldn't consider myself a Linux geek. I use linux, but honestly, there's a LOT I don't know about it yet. The forums are one of the best things about Ubuntu, and the Linux community in general. People are pretty much on stand-by waiting to help, or have already posted not only a solution, but a guide on how to do it. :)
Why Linux Is Not Successful On Desktop ? for the same reason that nobody want to use a car that you need to spend 30 minutes on before to be able to start it . Which software developper want to write apps for an OS that have more than 100 distros ???? End user operating systems are about ease of use and accessibility , if you need in 2016 , a command line terminal to install an app , your OS suck . Let's not even talk about all the dependencies crap and drivers issues.
You don't need the terminal to install an app. Haven't you heard of Debian packages, Software Center (older Ubuntu), Gnome Software (newer Ubuntu), Software Manager (Mint), etc.?
you dont even understand a sh*T. linux is for servers, big computers, data centers... haha your commenting in a webpage that is served by linux and gpl software: http server, database, ftp, etc, etc. you have silly distros for your weakness and real distros for you to run every app that you use. windows is for common people without capacity, linux is for people with advantage view of the world and it evolution.
If it is only for servers, why do I use it on all my desktops and laptops? It supports 100% of what I need and 99% of what I want. Games are the exceptions and Linus has stated repeatedly, Linux is never going to be a gaming OS. There are a handful of specialized apps that do not run on Linux. Referencing a previous comment about 100 distros and 10 maintainers, I've got 2 words containers MATE.
It seems like you don't know what you are talking about. > if you need in 2016 , a command line terminal to install an app , your OS suck When was the last time you saw Linux? 2003? > Which software developper want to write apps for an OS that have more than 100 distros ???? Providing packages for two major package systems (Debian and Red Hat) plus a tarball (just an archive with program) for everyone else will be enough. > nobody want to use a car that you need to spend 30 minutes on before to be able to start it Well, In Ubuntu you just need to hit "Next" a couple of times and enter your login information. Even easier than Windows.
@fukthegoog failure?? haha do you know where is hosted this webpage? or where is hosted almost every app / web / database in the world? maybe it's failing :D
"Why Linux Is Not Successful On Desktop" because the Linux desktop was and still is a mish mash pot of failure. Countless versions. Countless distros. Numerous desktop environments. Everyone is just doing their own thing. If the masses switched to Linux it would mean world productivity would stop; everyone would be too busy staring into a terminal window or asking others on Linux forums how to do basic tasks. The Linux desktop is for hobbyists, very experienced users, or those with sadomasochistic tendencies -- that's it.
Does it do high bit depth image editing, stacking or have good stable raw importers yet? Last time I checked it didn't. Also the developers seem a bit arrogant in some ways about design - when they replaced Save As with Export I don't think many people liked it and they seemed to be all "we're right and you're wrong - look we have some guy thats supposed to be a UI guru and he says so". Whatever :) I still have it installed and I like it a lot but I can't switch to it.
I use both a Windows PC and a Linux laptop. The only issue I have is that on my Windows PC, which has a dual monitor setup, things worked perfectly first time. When I tried to install a couple of distros of Linux, getting two monitors to work in the same way had me baffled! I haven't given up on this but will still to having Windows on my dual-screen PC and Linux on the laptop.
two monitors works fine out of the box, even "mandrake" had twin monitor support........ it's all in the settings....and no, I'm not a engineer, I'm a truck driver, so it's not hard.......lol
