Why is linux not as big as it should be?

It's not about the level of knowledge of the user at all, like... at all!!!

My folks use linux and wouldn't want to turn back to pay-to-be-spied-upon-warez at all, so are a lot of others. Ever more companies are switching to open source, because it delivers something that is very important: security. Not only data security, but also the knowledge that you'll be able to do the stuff you need to do as a company going forward. You won't be locked out of any means of production if some company decides that all of a sudden you're a minority that doesn't need a software update, or that the price has gone up so much that you have to start laying off people to finance the bloody software. These things are happening, and companies are learning that these things are happening, and that they are a serious threat.

The distinction between people that just want windows like it comes on their PC when they buy it online or at the supermarket, and just watch all of the dweeps on youtube sing the highest notes about Adobe or whatever mediocre commercial crapware that looks great IF it works as it should (and I use all of those things, I do know that they are far less reliable and break and destroy work regularly because they're not of a quality level that warrants a 140 EUR pricetag per user per year and to have your content held hostage at the same time, and to be honest, I pay commercial linux SLA's which are far more expensive than that, it's not about the cost as such, it's about what you actually get for the money. When I pay several hundreds of EUR per month for linux support that is 100% worth it, even though there are plenty of very linux qualified people running around here, that means that there is actual profit in that, or I wouldn't do it. The only thing I can say for Adobe and Microsoft and other commercial closed source warez (and that does include all of the Google crap and the Valve crap, which might be based on linux, but is not open source and is not of open source quality!), is that it sucks for the price. So Windows 10 is free to upgrade to... great, what about all of the man hours that have been lost in having to debug Windows 10 systems every single week since W10 was released? Missing drivers, missing functionality, missing everything, bugs all around... and it's been in beta for a whole fucking year! Face it, when Steven Sinofski was at Microsoft, and he got the assignment to fix Vista, they did a remarkable job with W7. Then he again did a remarkable job with W8 as far as the technical backend is concerned. So they fired him and reversed a lot of the technical benefits of W8/W8.1... that's all they did... to achieve what exactly... that every new device they sell still has the metro GUI because they're all touch devices and not usable with a start button? No wonder that Soma now also left after 27 years at MS... he was catching all the heat from devs on technet, from people that actually understand the crap that's piling up...

Your distinction is based on user skill. That's not correct, because there are skilled people, skilled at linux, that still use Windows for what it is good for, as a software console, as an entertainment system. You're assuming that skilled people don't use consumer entertainment devices. Your assumption is wrong. Of course they do!

The people that use commercial closed source solutions are not less skilled than others, they are just being consumers. Because that's what it is, commercial closed source software is not enterprise-grade, it doesn't offer a real opportunity to grow above and beyond, it's limiting, it's easy, it's prechewed, it's dumbed down, it's pre-configured, it's "don't think, we'll think for you"... and that's perfectly OK, if you know when to stop when it matters. The problem is that many people are overconsuming because of the "geek" trend. Everybody needs to be a computer wizz or a nerd or whatever... and they try to buy something to get there... not going to happen, they're just going to be out of money.

There is no "casual user". There is only a consumer and a professional user. Professional users are those that want to make money with the assets they invest in. Consumers don't care, they just want to spend money and get entertainment in return. That's why Windows X is so "gamified", that's why Android is so "gamified"... it's not about what it can and can't do, it's about entertainment, about interactive entertainment, internet-based entertainment for extremely bored people, that can buy some stuff, go on youtube, see linus sebastian rave about it, feel like they belong, buy something more that is even "higher end", etc... pure consumption and entertainment.

On the other end, if you want to get something done, and you want to stay ahead of the competition, and you want a balanced budget with a company that has employees that are real people with real lives and children to feed... that's where the entertainment stops, and where common sense starts... and that's where commercial closed source software is not justified any more, because it's dangerous and not productive enough. That's when open source everything becomes invaluable. Even for users that are not skilled in IT: secretaries, technicians, stock managers, etc... once you actually use what a fully open and unlimited system can really accomplish, they all benefit.

2 Likes

Don't worry about it, 4.3 is only in RC. The proprietary part still has to be released, and that will be the case this month when 4.3 is officially released. Kernel 4.2 was a transition.

fglrx is just the windows driver with a compatibility layer. It's not a worthy linux driver, hell it's barely a worthy windows driver lol. The AMD team has been tooling up for a long time to shift the action towards the driver for use with AMDGPU, so linux-centric. That's a wise choice, because Windows barely ever changes, and the changes that Windows X have brought, well, they're a fruit of the labour of AMD, so they're prepared. Linux changes a lot because it's far more modern than Windows, and that means that it was a necessary step for AMD to make open source kernel modules, so that kernel compatibility is a thing of the past. They've made the choice of easy maintenance and guaranteed compatibility going forward. And they start this new era with kernel 4.3 lol...

So just sit back and relax and see the whole thing unfold in the next two weeks. Ubuntu 15.10 is coming out, the new OpenSuSE Leap is coming out, Fc 23 is coming out, etc... there will be a lot of activity.

2 Likes

Well I hear that by Kernel 4.4 (Linus thinks) that we should see some sort of half-decent AMDGPU driver emerge with better compatibility (if we're lucky).

Also the initial new driver from AMD will be semi-opensource or some crap whatever that means...

That's realistic. Usually it takes about 6 months for the dust to settle on stuff like this. There are a lot of packages that use OpenGL/OpenCL in linux. By changing everything in the OpenCL/OpenGL department with new drivers, there is most certainly going to be a lot of breakage everywhere. Most breakage will be solved within one week, the most important packages that are necessary for production, will be fixed first, but for mission critical systems, it's probably best to stay conservative for another six months at least. And hey, that's the nice thing about open source: you get all of the security patches and updates for older kernels, older packages, you're not missing out on one single second of productivity, because you don't have to deal with any "mandatory update policy" etc...

In the mean time, the tweakers, the tinkerers, the linux freaks, etc... will test the crap out of everything and debug it, so that it all works perfectly fine in no time. That's the way open source works lol...

1 Like

You need to read the kernel notes if you wanna fight about kernels :P
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=search&q=Linux+4.1
I know it's 4.1 but since the latest kernels are still in dev stages that's what I found off the bat.

You're reminding me of the Alex guy that was trying to fight with me about how linux was stupid and trying to flip my logic around. This seems like a similar argument with @anon63470048 , just replace linux with kernel XD

It's a big adjustment for people tough...

It's not that hard to learn new terms. :|

That's true, especially since most terms used in linux are much older than anything else, because they're basically UNIX, but then don't forget that the CEO of DEC still said back in the 80's after the Apple II even had come out, that there is no reason for anyone to have a computer in their home... I guess UNIX is not really "common knowledge" for a lot of people lol

1 Like

something something OSX :P

Answering the original question. IMHO two main points

  1. Linux's lack of visibility which is a result of its lack of marketing.
  2. Lack of mainstream application support.

I have introduced Linux to five friends and co-workers. None of them had heard about it before and all are totally happy with it. All they needed was an office suite and a web browser. It has turned old laptops my employer flogged off for Β£10 into completely usable devices again. Running any flavour of Windows except XP and they would have been unusable.

The lack of a massive company marketing Linux to the masses and the face that it is still very rarely comes pre-installed means it fails to make gains in the desktop sphere.

Lack of mainstream application support will be a problem for some. First thing that comes to mind is people saying I can't use it because it lacks X software package even though FOSS equivalents may well exist.

I guess the biggest thing is.. marketing, Microsoft have the power to get there stuff out there...on devices... and unfortunately 89% of people dont like to tinker with computers 5% are apple whores and 6% are us...

I bet if linux could get devices preloaded with it people would buy it! but it would be the same issue with windows phones... you would have to start off with budget devices which then end up being crap and people dismiss them and wont buy the high end devices they can then make...

Also linux is pretty fragmented... which makes it hard foir the "average" end user to understand ie. ubuntu, gnome, mint, etc...

these are all my opinions(I am on the linux side of the argument though) , what do you think?

Hey, @FaunCB! Have you seen these videos? They're worth a look for anyone that's ever asked this question, and several, if not all the points have been made by people in this thread.

Also...

I definitely agree with this one. Of my brief time browsing Linux forums, when I set up a Linux VM, I was taken aback by the amount of hostility in posts. The air of condescension amongst the Linux community is enough to turn away most casual users. This isn't how they're going to win over people. I know not everyone is like that, but it only takes one bad experience to turn someone off.

I get there's this whole "do it yourself," culture in the Linux community, but all it will do is keep Linux from becoming more prevalent.

2 Likes

Yeah I have them going in the background when I'm cleaning my room :P

Eventually Linux will be as big as it should be thanks to Ubuntu. In the previous few months Ubuntu has been making some deals. Like an Ubuntu Fridge, and Ubuntu teaming with Microsoft. Ubuntu is really what is getting people to use Linux, and one day we will give them credit for getting Linux as big as it should be.

The real question I think would be, what will happen when Linux becomes as big as it should be. If people think that Linux is fragmented now, wait till we have thousands of Distro forks coming out a day, and a whole lot more DE's or WM's that a small percentage of users will use. Linux needs a centralized governing body ( Hopefully not FIFA ) that will be able to manage Linux when it becomes more popular.

Look at what happened to Bitcoin, it was popular in its early days thanks to the small amount of people that knew about it. But now since everyone is mining it is harder to get the $ from Bitcoin now we have hundreds of different coin miners popped up on the market. Having options on coin miners may not seem like a bad thing until, since there are so many options, people get up from mining X coin to go to Z coin and then X coin shuts down, leaving the users who mined X coin with whole bunch of useless coins.

One day Viruses will be a thing on Linux. Thanks to its growing popularity. One down side of fame, is the popularity. IMHO Linux should be kept as secret as possible to protect the utopia we have.

1 Like

That's quite a selfish motivation, though I do agree that Linux will become a victim of its own success, when it becomes popular enough. Android has viruses, and Android is basically a Linux distro. iOS has had vulnerabilities exposed. So yes, with popularity comes more attention from more unscrupulous folks, as well.

I was 20 when Windows 95 was launched. It was a really big deal at the time, and Microsoft really invested the big bucks to push it. They even bought The Rolling Stones, "Start Me Up" song for 5 Million Dollars to advertise. Windows as a desktop environment really super sucked until 1995. People lined up to buy a copy of 95... that's how bad Windows 3.11 was. Microsoft also focused on 2 big things at that time, 1. Gaming/DirectX, and 2. Internet/Internet Explorer. I think '95 was the year that really solidified Microsoft's dominance. It's mainly an issue of timing. The mindset at the time was that text based was "out" and GUI was "in." To get into anything text based was seen as a step backward, and Linux was still predominantly text based. As I recall, Apple went through a bad time in the latter 1990s where it looked like the company wasn't going to make it. That only helped cement Microsoft's position. Nowadays, with OSX, Android, and all the great flavors of Linux desktop now, developers and users alike are becoming more familiar with unix-like commands, forward slashes, and such. A background and familiarity is slowly building. With Valve and Steam pushing Linux development (or producing clean code that can be easily and readily ported to Linux), I think 2015/1016 might be Linux's '95 moment. It might not be as glitzy as Microsoft's '95 moment, but I think we're at the right moment in history where a shift "could" happen in Linux's favor. As the years progress, it will be Microsoft that will look like the oddball in the industry. It wouldn't surprise me to see Microsoft do what Apple did and build on top of a unix-like operating system just to avoid being the oddball in the industry. We shall see.

This is a very good point, for new users. I come from the DOS era though, so I'm somewhat accustomed to command line. Hell, to get anything to run on the Commodore, I had to run commands. But yes, nowadays, there are people that have never touched DOS, let alone a command prompt. It is this generation that hasn't that offers the stiffest resistance to migrating to Linux. I'm sure there is and if there isn't, a Linux distro that could be built that would meet this need of the casual user.

Yeah, you do get "Just read the man pages" a bit. I have tried following quite a few online tutorials and found the instructions in some (even as a noob) to just be wrong. However that can still teach you a lot. :-)

You can get the same in any online community. On balance I don't thing it is too bad. But you are right about the "one bad experience" thing.

Keep plugging away at Linux. Walk away for awhile when you get frustrated and come back. Your background knowledge will build over time. It gets easier as you build up your background.

1 Like

I know it's a little late, but how about a quote from the great Linus Torvalds himself: https://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/799449-can-ubuntu-click-address-linus-torvalds-binary-problems

Why doesn't the creator himself support his own kernel? The answer is simple: packaging applications for Linux desktop is extremely painful for app developers. He said, "You don’t make binaries for Linux, you make binaries for Fedora 19, Fedora 20 maybe there is even RHEL 5 from 10 years ago.”

He's talking about the binaries themselves, not about how binaries are packaged for a specific package manager.

Also, those "special versions" of Wine that I was talking about don't necessarily have different code, sometimes it's enough to just recompile the same code with different headers. What I'm trying to say is that they don't have the same binaries.