4 ms·

As has been already pointed out, this isn't really what Linus said. And, in any event, fragmentation has nothing to do with it. Ordinary users (and even many

As has been already pointed out, this isn't really what Linus said. And, in any event, fragmentation has nothing to do with it. Ordinary users (and even many advanced users) don't install operating systems. And one has to go out of their way to buy a machine with Linux pre-installed (and ordinary users don't go out of their way, certainly not for something that they know little or nothing about). If real (decent) machine with Linux on them were sold in Best Buy etc. there would be substantially more users of desktop Linux. Let's not pretend that multiple distributions is the reason.

rocky1138 8y ago
This is true, but a good chunk of marketing will also be required as, by default, people will instantly believe the "alternative" to Windows is a worse imitation. After all, if it's the same as Windows, why not just run Windows? So, it would have to be spun in the right manner as an upgrade as opposed to an alternative.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  > people will instantly believe the "alternative" to Windows is a worse imitation. Why? I would think the opposite would be true, generally. Right now in most people's minds there are "PCs" (i.e. Windows machines), which are more budget-friendly, and Macs, which are fancier but more expensive. Just put Kubuntu on a machine and sell it for more than the comparable machine running Windows and people will assume it's better.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I think that's a convenient ego-saving scapegoat for the Linux Desktop. Chrome was never pre-installed and people went out of their way to get it because it was a better product.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  I never said users don't install software, I said they don't install OS's. Of course users install software, you can't keep them from installing nearly every weird thing they come across online, that's why a quarter of the machines running desktop Windows are part of botnets. And of course part of the reason people installed Chrome is because Google owns half of the web and they kept popping up messages telling people to install Chrome. (If it was really about installing better software, we would see Firefox dominance: even privacy and openness etc. aside, Firefox has been an objectively better browser than Chrom{e|ium} since at least version 56.)
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    Operating Systems are software. They aren't even really that much harder to install than Windows or Linux applications. Consider that part of the reason Linux Desktop has failed to gain any traction is people like you who would rather imagine that everyone not using their favorite software is just too inept to do so.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      Ok, they install applications. I thought the context was clear enough that software would be understood in the intended way. And yes, you're right that installing, say, Ubuntu isn't particularly difficult. It does entail more 'risk' than installing Chrome, since you could wipe out your existing OS and/or data/home-directory unintentionally if you're not careful. > Consider that part of the reason Linux Desktop has failed to gain any traction is people like you who would rather imagine that everyone not using their favorite software is just too inept to do so. I never said that they were too inept to do so (I think we agree that it's really not that difficult even for a non-techy person), just that they don't. I think it's fairly clear that ordinary people don't install OSes (again, not that it would actually be difficult for them to do so, just that they don't).

rocky1138 8y ago

This is true, but a good chunk of marketing will also be required as, by default, people will instantly believe the "alternative" to Windows is a worse imitation. After all, if it's the same as Windows, why not just run Windows? So, it would have to be spun in the right manner as an upgrade as opposed to an alternative.

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
> people will instantly believe the "alternative" to Windows is a worse imitation. Why? I would think the opposite would be true, generally. Right now in most people's minds there are "PCs" (i.e. Windows machines), which are more budget-friendly, and Macs, which are fancier but more expensive. Just put Kubuntu on a machine and sell it for more than the comparable machine running Windows and people will assume it's better.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

I think that's a convenient ego-saving scapegoat for the Linux Desktop. Chrome was never pre-installed and people went out of their way to get it because it was a better product.

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
I never said users don't install software, I said they don't install OS's. Of course users install software, you can't keep them from installing nearly every weird thing they come across online, that's why a quarter of the machines running desktop Windows are part of botnets. And of course part of the reason people installed Chrome is because Google owns half of the web and they kept popping up messages telling people to install Chrome. (If it was really about installing better software, we would see Firefox dominance: even privacy and openness etc. aside, Firefox has been an objectively better browser than Chrom{e|ium} since at least version 56.)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Operating Systems are software. They aren't even really that much harder to install than Windows or Linux applications. Consider that part of the reason Linux Desktop has failed to gain any traction is people like you who would rather imagine that everyone not using their favorite software is just too inept to do so.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    Ok, they install applications. I thought the context was clear enough that software would be understood in the intended way. And yes, you're right that installing, say, Ubuntu isn't particularly difficult. It does entail more 'risk' than installing Chrome, since you could wipe out your existing OS and/or data/home-directory unintentionally if you're not careful. > Consider that part of the reason Linux Desktop has failed to gain any traction is people like you who would rather imagine that everyone not using their favorite software is just too inept to do so. I never said that they were too inept to do so (I think we agree that it's really not that difficult even for a non-techy person), just that they don't. I think it's fairly clear that ordinary people don't install OSes (again, not that it would actually be difficult for them to do so, just that they don't).