Why is linux not as big as it should be?

Software & Operating Systems Linux
1

To preface, I am a linux user. I know the ins and outs and I do all this crap all the time. Code, gaming, video production, all of it. Mac OSX is BSD with cairo dock and windows is a walking advertisement. This is my belief and I have nothing else to say on that end.

So, linux. A base system that lets you see everything. If anything is wrong or you think something is dumb, change it. The terminal will let you run things to see if something is missing or broken and a quick apt-get autoconfig to redo stuff that's broken or whatever the hell. The FS availability is there for fast as well as long term storage or error correction. It's all there. And if you're a basic computer user there is no reason to use a terminal. At most 3 commands are on a need to kow basis for ubuntu users and most of the time there is no reason to use them because there is a UI version meant for that stuff.

So why are we in the Windows desktop world when everything else is Linux? Phones, cars, routers, and personally all of my computers, gaming, editing, and servers, are all linux. I need it for what I do and I believe more in linux than I do in windows or god help me if OSX becomes my main OS.

I think the answer to that question is the same as the definition of grandfathering-in something. Windows and AppleOS fought it out in the 80's and 90's and whoopdee-doo windows came out on top (for some reason). Meanwhile other OS's were around as well, acorn, risc, GNU/Linux, and GNU itself for a while. As windows came to the top (again, I don't really know why considering linux is easy to Dev for) it became the dominant male at the frat house and would belch in your face if you said anything logical. Now that frat party has died off, they all failed college, and now that fat guy who belched at everyone is now trying to put on a suit and be as professional as the other guys who ignored him in the first place.

In my opinion it's silly to work on windows when major things like code, gaming, editing and whatever can be done on linux with some bits and bobs being even better on linux than on windows! I realize someone will come in here and shit post that Adobe is god and rock-jesus blesses his almighty c**k for whatever reason but bottom line is there is no reason for a stigma to be there.

I'm kind of leaning off the idea, but the point is I don't see why linux is the wierd guy in the basement when windows is the guy yelling at his kids in comparison.

Also viruses are stupid.... Just saying.

5 Likes
2
  1. Because people generally don't seek to educate themselves about the things they use.
  2. Because corporations nourish that willful ignorance for their own gain

Need I say more?

10 Likes
3

Linux doesn't come on the computers that they buy.

13 Likes
4

Even so. Every person I introduced Ubuntu to have not turned back. Old people that were worried about Viruses and horses in their hard drive thingamagoobers have had no issues and haven't exactly had to think about it or worry. Really cool.

5

That is a good answer, but if I go to bestbuy I can get an ROG with ubuntu on it just the same as an ROG with windows 10.

6

I think it is/was because Linux is Free (free as in beer). It is a psychological, subliminal thing. People equate the worth of thing with what they have to give up to get it. With linux you don't have to give up anything (except stupid nonsensical error messages and head aches) and therefore people are lead to believe it has no worth.

Incidentally I think it is the same reason that causes the BSDs to be less popular than linux. In developer circles linux is more expensive than BSDs, because with linux you have to pay with your code, with BSDs you don't.

3 Likes
7

Because you have a foundation who does things (maybe out of the kindness of their heart or for the grand scheme of things) going against a 90+ BILLION dollar company.

It's sucks to admit, but Linux will go no where on the desktop, when you have Microsoft pushing every single company and their mother.. WINDOWS WINDOWS WINDOWS ! and you have companies widely promoting microsofts products.

What's neccessary for Linux to succeed is Widespread promotion, Developer support (let's be real here, Microsoft claims to love Linux but wont bring Office to it) AND a lot of companies dont want to open source their products. And there needs to be ONE platform. Similar to how Android is, there is different flavors of Android, BUT they all work and do things exactly the same. Which a bunch of distros don't do. Certain distros have different package managers, some distros do things better than others. There needs to be one distro. Not a thousand. Or however many there is.

3 Likes
8

I like your answer, but I think the main difference between distros is the package managers. Most of it is by feeling around the distro to see what you like but to me I could use ubuntu, source mage, or arch but I'm still going to have to compile some wierd app for video transcoding. Apt, pacman, yuim, or yast, all the systems are exactly the same to me.

10

There's another thing that always bothered me as well and that is why don't android applications work on Linux, like OpenSUSE or Ubuntu or Fedora. Android is Linux based, so in theory those apps should work.

11

I don't quite agree with you there... I'm pretty sure at this point Red Hat nor Novell care about getting things done from the kindness of their hearts and are trying to make Linux mainstream. I see SLE ads all the time promoting zero downtime which even on a desktop is a great perk. At my HS we use Linux on a lot of our computers, and Chrome books already own the lower price segment. You may not see too many people with Linux gaming rigs, but Linux was never intended for that. 1% of the market share is a shit ton and that's not even counting Android in the enormity of things. Linux will take off on the desktop... but not via a respectable company.

12

people are lazy and dont want to mess something up that "works" for them lol

13

Because those packages are compiled in a different matter with different dependencies... The same as why you cant install Final Cut on Windows... Linux is but a kernel not everything in its entirety...

1 Like
14

Packaging mostly. Google has a copywrite on that stuff so we couldn't get it anyways. On top of that it's all arm based. Yeah it would be cool but I wouldn't really care.

15

Linux works with, not for :P

1 Like
16

Linux users have been saying that for years now, it's always the same comment.. (it's getting there) i personally want to see some progress. I haven't seen anything for Ubuntu Phone or tablet. Where is it?

It may sound like i'm trolling, but i'm just being honest. I want to hold a tablet or device that isn't owned by Google. We needed something like this a while ago.

1 Like
17

http://www.ubuntu.com/phone

1 Like
18

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-ubutab-a-1tb-ubuntu-tablet-for-media-lovers#/story

Ubuntu tablet ^^^^^^

http://www.ubuntu.com/phone

Ubuntu on Phones ^^^^^^

1 Like
19

Yeah but it's only a few products, i can't go to T-Mobile or (best buy) and just go BUY an Ubuntu phone or tablet. And that goes back to my point i've said, it's not widely promoted as it needs to be.

20

You can order one and have it in a few days same as you can with anything T Mobile sells.

21

The other thing is that physical stores are slowly becoming obsolete. More and more people buy everything online.

1 Like