“Just Switch to Linux” Is The Loser’s Game
Other urls found in this thread:
boilingsteam.com
twitter.com
>boilingsteam.com
not opening that shitty blog kill yourself retard
tldr?
Not going to read it, but let me guess, the guy either complains that his favourite nonfree closed source game doesn't work, or that he has issues with his nonfree closed source drivers, or that it was too confusing to pick a distro. This is the type of person who apologizes for proprietary software and would never submit a bug report or patch for anything, and then wonders why he keeps getting sucked back to windows.
Very cool blog, you write like a 12 year old /b/tard that is stuck in 2006.
Cool valid point tho.
It's not that apologist, but the gist is:
>The process for getting your average Linux distro up and running is an order of magnitude more complicated for your average retard.
>You likely won't convert the diehard who needs every game on release day, but you can make significant inroads with stuff like Proton.
>We need some systems in place (prebuilts, remote help, hearts and minds shit) if you want a larger adoption rate.
Of course, that's ignoring the fact that most problems that arise in a Linux environment, while fixable, are far from comprehendable for the average joe. With Windows, you often go "It can't be helped! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" and leave it at that while buying another PC/reinstalling because it really can't be fixed. With Linux, while most problems can be fixed with a bit of searching and man page reading, the fact remains that you're cracking open an arcane terminal to fix a lock on a package manager at the best of times and at the worst, manually applying some random patch some guy hacked together in an evening to get your shit working (after years of being correctly drilled not to download random shit off the internet)
Linux is still a DIY environment in a lot of ways, and I highly doubt outside of an unwelcome sea change in design philosophy it's going to change.
tldr on the gist?
Linux looks very interesting, even if some of the screen colours and menu options appear to be a little out of the ordinary. But you are missing a vital point, a point which takes some experience and depth of knowledge in the field of computers. You see, when a computer boots up, it needs to load various drivers and then load various services. This happens long before the operating system and other applications are available. Linux is a marvellous operating system in its own right, and even comes in several different flavours. However, as good as these flavours are, they first need Microsoft Windows to load the services prior to use. In Linux, the open office might be the default for editing your wordfiles, and you might prefer ubuntu brown over the grassy knoll of the windows desktop, but mark my words young man – without the windows drivers sitting below the visible surface, allowing the linus to talk to the hardware, it is without worth. And so, by choosing your linux as an alternative to windows on the desktop, you still need a windows licence to run this operating system through the windows drivers to talk to the hardware. Linux is only a code, it cannot perform the low level function. My point being, young man, that unless you intend to pirate and steal the Windows drivers and services, how is using the linux going to save money ? Well ? It seems that no linux fan can ever provide a straight answer to that question ! May as well just stay legal, run the Windows drivers, and run Office on the desktop instead of the linus.
Linux is a kernel, not an OS.
If you want support for a particular distro or you need help installing then you can pay someone for support.
Adoption rate means nothing if people are going to use it primarily to run nonfree closed source software. Those are the type of people who won't contribute, won't pay a dime, only see it as a windows clone but without the license fee.
>Linux is a kernel, not an OS.
It's very obvious that you're just trolling with semantics Stallman. It's a common shorthand that's used on this very board literally every hour.
And while you're right about their use cases, the fact of the matter is that anyone who is willing and able to use any form of a Linux distribution is a net positive up to a point with terms of exposure to not just software, but in ideals. Do you expect people to contribute to something that they never use in any form, especially if you're of the stalwart mentality of "No proprietary software allowed!". You can eventually convert someone who comes in the door, but good luck in doing so when you tell them to fuck off until they compile everything from source with only GPL/BSD licenses accepted.
>Linux is still a DIY environment in a lot of ways, and I highly doubt outside of an unwelcome sea change in design philosophy it's going to change.
Which is exactly why it's pointless to try to make GNU/Linux mainstream. Most of the people who use it like it for what it is. That is why Wine and Proton exist to begin with, because trying to beat Windows as the industry leader is an idiotically foolish endeavor, something even Apple would likely fail to do if they really tried.
>gaymer too dumb to install loonix
One of the biggest problems he apparently didn't even bother to mention is the shitfucked way audio is handled.
So it’s only advantage is you don’t have to pay for a 100$ license? Fucking poorfags and your 200$ thinkpads.
Seems only optimal if like an ATM or some industrial thing needs a license. But for personal use seems retarded
>epic bundlecord
Fucking what
Proton is not an attempt to make Linux mainstream even if faggots on here want to make you believe that. It's nothing more than an attempt to get more programs running on Linux systems that get's abused by retards rambling about the year of the loonix desktop.
Besides that I completely agree, it's completely retarded to try making something this inherently niche go mainstream for whatever reason people have to delude themselves to that point.
>$200
Don't be silly, I haven't paid that much for a thinkpad. Most I've spent on one is $80
THIS
/thread
I don't care if it's common shorthand, it's still a misnomer. Linux is a kernel, not an OS.
Users who don't desire software freedom will gladly switch back to windows whenever it pleases them, so they don't matter because they will never contribute anyway. If they don't contribute, they are free-loaders.
I also don't care about converting casual computer users. Compiling everything from source is the only way to have reliably secure software. The casual user doesn't care about that now and will never listen to reason until many more high-profile cyberattacks happen. I won't sit around waiting with them.
The writing is kinda poor, but that article is pretty much spot on. It doesn't matter how green we make the grass in Linux-Land, switching OS is a massive hurdle for 99% of computer users. Hell, most people don't even know what an OS IS, let alone how to go about replacing it.
Another really important thing in the article is pointing out that post-install half of switching. A lot of thought has been put into making easy live-booting images and hand-holding installers, but most of the available help with switching to a Linux distro disappears the moment the install finishes. There's a lot of stuff that seems really obvious to experienced users, but is a complete mystery to people who've only used Windows:
How do I install software?
Where do I get help?
How do I connect to a network?
Which packages are necessary for the system to run?
How do I know what is and isn't important?
Where do I put files?
How do I install drivers?
That kind of thing. Maybe there's decent video tutorials or something covering that now, but if so they're not nearly discoverable enough.
Are you seriously implying the average user would even bother to look for a tutorial on how to install Chrome instead of just switching back to Windows?
Best summary so far. Really it's not that different from any OS transition. I used Windows and Windows only as a kid, and then in my teens someone bought me a macbook. It took me ages just to adjust to the fact that the close/minimize/maximize icons were on the opposite side. Took even longer to realize that closing a window doesn't mean the application's closed, and you have to "really" close it by right clicking it on the dock.
>It took me ages just to adjust to the fact that the close/minimize/maximize icons were on the opposite side.
It's getting less and less important every day with phones being the only 'computer' the mainstream uses (other than at work where they have no choice anyway).
The last beginner friendly distro was Ubuntu 16.04 with Unity. Now that Unity is not supported and Canonical is focusing on 'the cloud', we're unlikely to ever again see anything catering to the mainstream to that extent.
>Are you seriously implying the average user would even bother to look for a tutorial on how to install Chrome instead of just switching back to Windows?
No: The "not discoverable enough" part of my comment was that they shouldn't NEED to look for it. If you install a beginner-friendly distro, then it should be difficult to AVOID the tutorials and help. Embed youtube videos into the download page, put an animated walkthrough into the installer, have the OS autorun an interactive tutorial every time you boot until you finish it. If experienced users aren't rolling their eyes at the amount of shit they need to close, then inexperienced users aren't getting enough help. Microsoft figured this stuff out with Windows 95, and while it pissed everyone off it clearly worked.
>The last beginner friendly distro was Ubuntu 16.04 with Unity. Now that Unity is not supported and Canonical is focusing on 'the cloud', we're unlikely to ever again see anything catering to the mainstream to that extent.
They idea that we might be going backwards in accessibility, when we barely hit the lofty heights of Windows-fucking-ninety-five, ought to alarm everyone. The entire reason Ubuntu succeeded in the first place was that they massively lowed the bar for switching to Linux - it would be great if someone could replicate that feat again.
Windows 95, other than it's shit stability, was arguably more user friendly than Windows 10 is today. Certainly less invasive.
>Took even longer to realize that closing a window doesn't mean the application's closed, and you have to "really" close it by right clicking it on the dock.
That's a hangover from the good days when the Finder was a spatial file manager, so every application had to have available a state where no window was open but only the menubar was available.