Hmmm, 20 plus steps to install skyrim, and maybe have it work, or go onto steam in windows download and play.
Again, yes you can play the games, but its a pain in the ass, and doesn't always work. Just playing devil's advocate though.
This honestly doesn't end anything it just proves the point that Linux on the desktop is still in the distant future.
It IS limited. the fact you have to jump through so many hoops to get your games running on Linux is a limiting factor. Current PC games are made for Windows first. you'd be lucky if it gets a Linux Port.
OP it's because programs people use on windows don't work in linux. No they aren't wanting to try out another program that does the same things.
As a long term Linux user, to tell the truth, it doesn't bother me that hordes of Windows users aren’t switching. Lets face it, current company excluded, most Windows users are pretty dumb. They use PC's, they're not aware of how they work and don't want know either. Mac users are worse, they see their desktops, laptops and phones as a fashion accessory!
The best thing is they throw away perfectly good PC's because of simple faults, like a dead disk. Free hardware for Linux geeks, like me.
I'm sure the day is coming when Linux, in some flavour, will ship as a mainstream pre-installed OS. However, it won't be anything like what you can download today from distrowatch. Because someone like your mum will be the target audience.
Your example I cant disagree with more. Thats like saying install the Linux version of metro 2033 on windows shows that windows isnt ready for the desktop.
You just told us its possible to play a game from a completely different incompatible OS on Linux.. Thats no small task.
The comparable view. Go install the Linux versions of Metro 2033 on Linux is just as easy as windows. You click install.. you play.
Would it be nice to have windows only games like skyrim native on Linux? Sure. But I dont think they make enough money off it to justify converting an old engine to run on Linux. In fact im surprised so many companies went back and ported there engines for many of there old games. It only goes to show theres interest in it.
(dunno if its worth noting but i can count on one hand the games i play that dont have a Linux version, and some of them will in the near future)
I'm not getting this thread lol...
How big does Linux have to get:
the largest install base in all segments of the computing market, except for the dying PC market in the Western world;
the base of the most popular gaming operating system that makes the most money: Android. (By the way, those that say that gaming is not as good on Linux or Mac in comparison to Windows, should check the stock market and the market statistics, because the entire gaming industry on Windows is in a very bad state, including Microsoft itself both on PC and console, in fact, Apple is actually the company that earns the most money in the gaming market, because they have the biggest margin and the biggest game sales in numbers. Android has a larger install base and more games are installed and played on Android than on iOS, but the profit on those is much lower for Google and bigger for the developers that provide the game.)
the entire internet and most embedded systems practically runs on Linux and various GNU/Linux distros. The cloud business and the IoT business are where the future lies. That's a Linux-only world pretty much, with the exception of some BSD arrangements. BSD is a nice operating system that certainly has advantages for certain specific purposes, and it benefits quite a lot from Darwin development by Apple, but it will not evolve like the Linux world, because it's not GPL licensed, and companies that invest in BSD, use the BSD license to make their development proprietary, so that it only benefits the BSD source to a very limited extent.
the biggest asset of Linux is the GPL license model: any investment in development downstream automatically benefits the upstream. That means that Linux growth can only accelerate. It's actually very simple. Whatever anyone does with the Linux code, when it's an improvement, everyone automatically inherits that improvement. At the same time, bad decisions during development are automatically ignored and don't have lasting negative consequences. If BSD would change from the BSD/MIT to the GPL license model, they could become bigger than Linux in about 10 years time, but they are not going to do that, because that would mean that Apple OSX would also become GPL licensed because it's derivative.
Who are 'they'?
There is something that can be considered a default "Linux" distro: Ubuntu. I'd say Ubuntu is close enough to the "ONE Linux" that works and has packages available for just about every app that the users need. I think that the problem is like you said in the beginning though, that Microsoft and Apple are just a little too big, powerful, and present in the computer world. The only ones who can sail to the "Port of Linux" are those already know where it is, so to speak.
Android is a linux distro...
Honnestly i have not seen any tripple AAA game for the Android OS till now.
Maybe it might change in the future, but since game devs are lazy sucks,
i dont think that big changes are going to happen very soon for gamers in general.
Gamers on the pc still choose for windows, because their hardware works "relatively" better on Windows with less hicups.
And there are simply more games availeble on Windows, which again takes less hicups to get those running.
**I use the word "relatively" because not all gamers are that knowledgeable about Linux,
and know how to install proper hardware drivers.**
I do see more and more games comming to the linux platform aswell. (Thanks to steam OS)
But its not realy there yet.
In the future there definitely might.
And like I said it is totally possible to have more games end up working well with linux, that's more the game dev side rather than Linux itself. And I would want Linux to get support. If Linux had the game variety of Windows, I'd switch over in the heartbeat. Not in anyway trying to bash Linux, I use it on my laptop and other desktop everyday. I love the functionality and freedom to customize to the way I like it.
Also yes, that perhaps wasn't the greatest example, but at the same time, the linux version of metro 2033 is probably less popular than the windows version. (I could be wrong, please correct me if I am). And it was originally made for windows and the other consoles. The Linux version came a lot later. And its unfortunate for sure. But when most of the desktop market is dominated by windows, it can be hard to see the benefits of porting it to Linux.
Like I said, yes it mostly the Dev's fault, but is it that it will be too hard to port over, the devs are too lazy, and not enough profit will come from it?
I don't fully agree. I think Windows is still a wonderful platform for getting shit done and having fun. Simply enough, some software, no matter what you do, will not run flawlessly on Linux distros. This is the problem of the developers of course, but it's what has kept me running dual boot instead of totally switching over. That and gaming support, it's getting so close, but it's still not quite there yet.
As far as why more people don't run Linux? ...It's probably just lack of enlightenment, or fear. A lot of people struggle to even operate Windows/Mac so when you show them a command line interface, they kind of lose their shit. And, in all honesty, depending on the distribution of choice, Linux can be a chore - it's a chore I find enjoyable and a constant source of new knowledge, but not everyone is going to put up with that, which I understand. I know mac users who LOVE macs for the purpose of graphic design and video editing -- good on them. Windows users like the list of infinite compatibility and how easy it is to keep it running with a little common sense - more power to them. I'm a heavy linux user but I still understand and respect the other two platforms.
However, what I will /never/ understand is why Windows servers are so widely used. I can't see a single point in running a server that is not running on Linux or BSD. I just...can't see it and that rant would take me ages.
The main points have already been said but it mainly comes down to.
The general populace doesn't give a shit, and the ones that do are on on Linux.
Windows and apple have spent billions of dollars so that they are what is out there on the products that people buy, Linux can't do this they do not have the funding.
Windows, Apple and Linux all have their place. They are all tools, and nothing more. Use the right tool for the job/use. Want to play the latest triple A title, you need windows. Want to run a samba server, you're looking at Linux for this, Want Itunes, you're looking at Apple.
Active Directory is the biggest reason I can think of, and its not that there aren't alternatives. But the question is do they work as well or meet the full feature set of Microsoft's implementation?
I see what your getting at, but Android is primarily aimed at tablets and phones (I have both). It's great for the internet and lightweight applications, but not really a rival, as yet, to Windows/Mac/Linux desktops. It's sister OS Chrome, is probably the nearest Linux variation in that respect. However it does illustrate my point, that the user interface has been developed to cocoon the user from the underlining OS and hardware. It's probably entirely necessary as an end user product, but it's not Linux as we know it.
There is also the privacy issue, that has been a traditional stronghold of Linux. Ubuntu's inclusion of Amazon search was not greeted with uniform cheers, from the community and I doubt that Google, for all it's fine words, are seriously concerned about protecting it's Android/Chrome users from commercial exploitation. Not to mention the attentions of government agencies.
Lot's of reasons, the server is a lot more than the OS and Microsoft have some products companies like; Exchange, AD, SQL Server, System Center etc. Add to that there is a ready supply of trained admins and ease of learning a new MS product you can see why. On top of that Microsoft promote their product well with bigger corporations and use incentives to keep it there.
With most non-superuser people you could install linux on their machine, tell them it's windows 11 or something, and they'd be on their merry way, never knowing the difference. Once linux runs it runs fine, and these people just need to be able to browse the web, read email (most often on the web), write a word document, play with the photos off their camera, run skype, and turn off the machine.
While I understand what you mean, in that scenario the user is still cocooned, not through the design of the OS, but through their use of it.
on a side note: Plenty of european government departments have in fact gone linux all-in without a hitch, even for the not tech savvy users. On the surface switching to linux is no different than upgrading to a newer version of windows/office.
The Man from Apple in the BSD board, and other colourful persons like Theo De Raadt. Look up some of the people behind BSD and find out what they are about, it's very educative.
BSD is like a syndicate, a union, there is no real legal structure, everything is intentionally kept in a shady grey zone. That's because BSD started out with code from an actual UNIX development, and they got sued to hell and back for including code that was not open source. BSD stands for "Berkeley Software Distribution", because it was basically a UNIX code leak by Berkeley. The project took off when there was a second leak some time afterwards. The BSD community likes it like that, to be in a legal situation of non-liability through lack of legal structure: if there is no formal organization, there is nothing to deliver a subpoena at basically.