Ubuntu is the reason Windows users don't want to switch to Linux(xda-developers.com)
xda-developers.com
Ubuntu is the reason Windows users don't want to switch to Linux
https://www.xda-developers.com/ubuntu-reason-linux-users-dont-want-switch-linux/
29 comments
I found the opposite, I removed a pile of unnecessary bloatware from a couple of systems and snap kept reinstalling it on every OS update. I just couldn't get rid of them, snap decided it knew better than me what I wanted.
Come to think of it, that's a lot like Windows so maybe they are getting closer to the Windows experience after all.
Come to think of it, that's a lot like Windows so maybe they are getting closer to the Windows experience after all.
We've been talking about The Year of the Linux Desktop for over 30 years. Now it's clearer then ever that such a year is never going to happen. Meanwhile, Linux has become the server OS of choice - and that's not likely to change for a long, long time. Linux has even become the OS of choice for embedded environments as well, so long as your runtime environment isn't too terribly constrained, you don't need hard real time, and human lives won't be lost if something were to go wrong. That's a lot of places where Linux is running. It's just not going to run on many desktops. I take that as a win.
I never understood why some people really, really want others to switch to Linux. I don't really care if many people switch to Linux. If anything, a lot of beginner switching to Linux may well make Linux worse for me.
I see a lot of "if you want to convert Windows users, you have to...". I really don't want to convert Windows users. I did not move to Linux to please those who like Windows.
Said differently, if a distro managed to please all Windows users, it most definitely wouldn't please me. I don't see why I should hope for that.
I see a lot of "if you want to convert Windows users, you have to...". I really don't want to convert Windows users. I did not move to Linux to please those who like Windows.
Said differently, if a distro managed to please all Windows users, it most definitely wouldn't please me. I don't see why I should hope for that.
Disagree. It is good for users of all operating systems, if Linux becomes so usable that it threatens Windows. Then Windows has to improve and we have a race to the top.
I disagree with "usability" being one dimension. I disagree with assuming that Windows is the definition of "most usable" and "Linux should move towards Windows to get more usable".
Linux is different. It's great to learn something different. I don't use Linux because I don't want to pay for Windows. I use Linux because I like how Linux is.
The more Windows people join Linux and try to make it look like Windows, the more Linux starts looking like the platform I left 15 years ago.
Linux is different. It's great to learn something different. I don't use Linux because I don't want to pay for Windows. I use Linux because I like how Linux is.
The more Windows people join Linux and try to make it look like Windows, the more Linux starts looking like the platform I left 15 years ago.
You are making a philosophy out of it, but I claim that usability is not a philosophy but an objective value. The more usable a tool is, without losing anything else, the higher it's value.
> I claim that usability is not a philosophy but an objective value
Counter-example: many times, what I find more usable is what others find less usable. Unless I'm objectively stupid, usability is subjective.
I hate it when people tell me "Linux should look more like Windows, because Windows is more usable. And if you don't find that Windows is more usable, then you're objectively wrong".
Counter-example: many times, what I find more usable is what others find less usable. Unless I'm objectively stupid, usability is subjective.
I hate it when people tell me "Linux should look more like Windows, because Windows is more usable. And if you don't find that Windows is more usable, then you're objectively wrong".
> Counter-example: many times, what I find more usable is what others find less usable. Unless I'm objectively stupid, usability is subjective.
Hard to argue with you about that, unless you get more concrete. Can you give an example for something you find more usable which others find less usable (than what?)?
Hard to argue with you about that, unless you get more concrete. Can you give an example for something you find more usable which others find less usable (than what?)?
Some quick examples:
* I need a tiling window manager
* I need vim bindings
* I want CLIs as much as possible
* I want config files, not Settings panels in UIs
* I want to be able to build my packages from source and patch them if necessary
All of those things are more usable on Linux than they are on Windows (when they actually exist on Windows).
* I need a tiling window manager
* I need vim bindings
* I want CLIs as much as possible
* I want config files, not Settings panels in UIs
* I want to be able to build my packages from source and patch them if necessary
All of those things are more usable on Linux than they are on Windows (when they actually exist on Windows).
Your taste is not different regarding usability but regarding tools. Usability just means making that what you use as usable as possible:
* Window managers are wisely preconfigured and the user can one-click-switch between them, like between Plugins.
* Key bindings are configurable for everything (which probable is already the case)
* There is a CLI <-> GUI standard. Same for config files <-> settings panels, etc. The UCI standard for chess engines comes to mind.
* Installing from source is integrated. Every source code directory can be right-clicked: "compile". Every binary can be right-clicked: "modify". And that works out of the box, no programming skills required unless one wants to make changes. One can click on code locations: "Explain".
* A "freeze" button which freezes the current state of my system bit by bit. There is a possibility to backup that to the internet for a monthly fee. No credit card required.
* Every button bar can be configured, every list of something can be filter-as-you-typed. Every right-click Menu can be configured.
* Linux has a global namespace/function/type library, accessible via a browser and also directly from within Linux. You dont have to read any doc except that of the used namespace/function/type. it creates binaries which follow the above standard.
* There is an AI window where I can ask questions about my system. It has a well-done local default AI but there is an option to buy tokens from popular "Language Models". No tech speak. No credit card required.
Oh, I get it now. I guess I agree with that, then. Though before you reach "perfect, ideal usability", I feel like it's still subjective. Linux is currently more usable to me than Windows or macOS.
Also I think we could debate on the "footguns" idea. Many people will say "we should not allow the user to do that because it is a footgun" for many things that I barely consider "advanced usage" and that I actually want. Does making it simpler at the cost of removing possibilities count as making it more usable, or less?
Also I think we could debate on the "footguns" idea. Many people will say "we should not allow the user to do that because it is a footgun" for many things that I barely consider "advanced usage" and that I actually want. Does making it simpler at the cost of removing possibilities count as making it more usable, or less?
Right you are. Making it "simpler" at the cost of removing possibilities is not usability. That is dictatorship disguising itself as a service to the alleged "uneducated user". The Gnome people do / have done that, the result is an operating system which is nearly unusable. Usability is not some developer deciding which tools to have and which tools not to have, usability is allowing the users to choose but give pleasant defaults, so that the user can also choose not to choose.
[deleted]
1. It's a moral good (free as in freedom). Wider Linux adoption makes software more free for everyone and creates a feedback loop: more users means more engineering effort, which improves the many many projects we colloquially call Linux, which (i++) attracts more users. As a corollary to #1: do you really want Billy G spying on your mom?
2. It's often better for the environment to keep old hardware running (manufacturing emissions usually dwarf operational ones for consumer devices).
And a more personal corollary to #2: I love old hardware and don't want to see it die (and I'm not talking about vintage tech). A 16+ core Haswell Xeon (that riiiing) and Polaris RX 480 (HWS, why yes) remain perfectly useful in the modern world. I like knowing both are out there, somewhere, just chugging away long after they were retired from some server or mining operation.
2. It's often better for the environment to keep old hardware running (manufacturing emissions usually dwarf operational ones for consumer devices).
And a more personal corollary to #2: I love old hardware and don't want to see it die (and I'm not talking about vintage tech). A 16+ core Haswell Xeon (that riiiing) and Polaris RX 480 (HWS, why yes) remain perfectly useful in the modern world. I like knowing both are out there, somewhere, just chugging away long after they were retired from some server or mining operation.
> Wider Linux adoption makes software more free for everyone and creates a feedback loop: more users means more engineering effort, which improves the many many projects we colloquially call Linux
I don't think it is necessarily true. More users may mean that some platform (say Ubuntu) gets so much traction that the rest becomes irrelevant. I already see "free as in freedom" projects that only support the last two versions of Ubuntu, and couldn't care less about other distros. To the point where they will have hard dependencies on things that only work on Ubuntu and are very difficult to adapt to other distros.
> I love old hardware and don't want to see it die
I have a counter-example with Android. Android/AOSP is pretty good with backward compatibility. It is pretty easy for a developer to compile an app for older devices, the OS totally supports it.
But developers/companies will just happily target newer devices and drop older ones ("98% of our users are on Android "X", let's drop the support for older ones") and tend to test their apps on recent hardware (meaning that a perfectly fine device will still be able to run the app, but it will lag to the point where it is unusable). Happened to me: I had to change my phone because random apps (like banking or weather forecast, I'm not talking high-performance like games here) became unusable. A banking app just shows a few numbers, still they manage to make it lag on a phone from 2020.
I don't think it is necessarily true. More users may mean that some platform (say Ubuntu) gets so much traction that the rest becomes irrelevant. I already see "free as in freedom" projects that only support the last two versions of Ubuntu, and couldn't care less about other distros. To the point where they will have hard dependencies on things that only work on Ubuntu and are very difficult to adapt to other distros.
> I love old hardware and don't want to see it die
I have a counter-example with Android. Android/AOSP is pretty good with backward compatibility. It is pretty easy for a developer to compile an app for older devices, the OS totally supports it.
But developers/companies will just happily target newer devices and drop older ones ("98% of our users are on Android "X", let's drop the support for older ones") and tend to test their apps on recent hardware (meaning that a perfectly fine device will still be able to run the app, but it will lag to the point where it is unusable). Happened to me: I had to change my phone because random apps (like banking or weather forecast, I'm not talking high-performance like games here) became unusable. A banking app just shows a few numbers, still they manage to make it lag on a phone from 2020.
Agreed. Some degree of elitism is a force for good. I want Linux to be the programmer's system. Just enough popularity to be relevant and have people actively developing it. Never enough popularity that we have hordes of computer illiterate randoms. Linux should be a system built by programmers and for programmers.
Totally. And even for developers: many developers will happily ship their program as a docker image, just because they can't be arsed to learn how to properly package it.
And that's just one example.
And that's just one example.
Linux is cool and I want more people to enjoy it.
I see all these people suffering -- pointlessly -- and I want to tell them "come! suffer for a while! In exchange you get low latency, native docker, no ai or bing or other shovelware, being the master of your computer feels great!"
I see all these people suffering -- pointlessly -- and I want to tell them "come! suffer for a while! In exchange you get low latency, native docker, no ai or bing or other shovelware, being the master of your computer feels great!"
I see a difference between "you should try to learn Linux, you'll see it's cool" and "we should change Linux such that Windows people don't need to learn it".
I agree with a lot of this.
Most people want Windows to be better, not to have to move to Linux. You can't make people convert, especially people that quite frankly might not want to.
People just want the Windows they have been using to be better, they don't want to move away from it and that's perfectly reasonable.
Most people want Windows to be better, not to have to move to Linux. You can't make people convert, especially people that quite frankly might not want to.
People just want the Windows they have been using to be better, they don't want to move away from it and that's perfectly reasonable.
The distro for Linux Newbies is Mint.
I work with Linux every day at work writing large scale server applications.
However I choose Windows at home. It is just a much better user experience for me.
Also, Ubuntu often break badly when I try to upgrade. So I only do it as a last ditch effort when something breaks and I can't fix it. I never have that issue with Windows. It just works.
Not to mention that my favourite games are Windows only.
However I choose Windows at home. It is just a much better user experience for me.
Also, Ubuntu often break badly when I try to upgrade. So I only do it as a last ditch effort when something breaks and I can't fix it. I never have that issue with Windows. It just works.
Not to mention that my favourite games are Windows only.
> I work with Linux every day at work writing large scale server applications.
> Also, Ubuntu often break badly when I try to upgrade
What distro do you use at work ? Did you tried Debian ?
Upgrading can cause problems also with Windows.
> Also, Ubuntu often break badly when I try to upgrade
What distro do you use at work ? Did you tried Debian ?
Upgrading can cause problems also with Windows.
pre installation for at least the last couple of decades, is the reason most users have no clue how to manage installation and configuration.
To be fair though, I don't think it's unreasonable for the "average user" to expect that there are sensible defaults for the things they buy / install.
Obviously, there's a huge difference between something like a car and your OS of choice (specifically noting the 'of choice' part of that when it comes to installing a Linux distribution), but I feel as though the sentiment is roughly the same.
Obviously, there's a huge difference between something like a car and your OS of choice (specifically noting the 'of choice' part of that when it comes to installing a Linux distribution), but I feel as though the sentiment is roughly the same.
Snap is a lot better then the alternatives. Snap was the only way I was able to install CouchDB on fedora.