4 ms·

> it seems that library compatibility isn’t that much of a determinant for which OS a typical user chooses to game on. I would argue that linux would need to b

by u2077 5y ago

> it seems that library compatibility isn’t that much of a determinant for which OS a typical user chooses to game on. I would argue that linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically. Most people don’t even know linux is an option on desktop. Not that many people bother to change their search engine to something other than google, and that doesn’t require much effort. Switching to linux is an investment and takes time to use - let alone understand it. I can’t wait to see what follows after the steam deck is released. Hopefully with all the publicity companies will finally start taking linux seriously.

ahelwer 5y ago
Dual-booting needs to become easier and less bug-prone. People need to be able to try Linux before committing their main system. One year ago I tried setting up dual-booting on my system with Ubuntu and it irreparably trashed the Windows boot process; and I needed to do a full nuke & pave. At this time I don't perceive installing Linux to be a good idea unless you're buying a dedicated Linux workstation from System76 or similar.
- sergeykish 5y ago
  I'd recommend Live USB, flash drives are big enough these days.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> I would argue that linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically. I disagree. There are good reasons people choose not to use Linux and it is annoying that the community continues to tell itself variations of this kind of thing so it doesn't have to face that fact. Even starting out a potential user has to navigate a ludicrous number of distros, all with slightly different ways of doing things and various levels of inadequate and out of date documentation, and as soon as they ask for help they'll likely be told to try a different distro regardless of which one they pick. Even having Linux preinstalled won't change this because, as we've seen, every single manufacturer wants to build their own distro instead of throwing their effort behind an existing one.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  > There are good reasons people choose not to use Linux and it is annoying that the community continues to tell itself variations of this kind of thing so it doesn't have to face that fact. This is true, but I think it's actually irrelevant to the point GP is making. Even if Linux had absolutely no downside for any user in this community, and every person who would want to use it switched to it, Windows is so ubiquitous and does a good enough job that I doubt the given 1% number would raise more than a few percentage points.
  - squeaky-clean 5y ago
    I agree. Windows is "free" for most gamers too. If you're building your own PC you need to buy a license, but the majority of steam users are definitely on pre-builts or laptops.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    At 1%, any extra percentage points represents at least a 2x increase. That's not dramatic? I would think a 10%+ increase would be easily achievable between Glorious PC Gaming Master Race, People What Have Entirely Too Serious Hobbies, and People Who Use Computers For Work if said people actually wanted the Linux Desktop experience. At any rate, I can't back up my hypothetical quantification of "if Linux fixed some of its most well known issues" gains, it's just a gut feeling from 20 years of interacting with personal computers and the people who use them.
- throw10920 5y ago
  > There are good reasons people choose not to use Linux This can be true at the same time as "linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically", and in fact the latter almost certainly is. There's strong scientific evidence for the claim that default values matter (e.g. with organ donation rates[1]), and no reason to believe that that wouldn't apply to Linux, as well. > it is annoying that the community continues to tell itself variations of this kind of thing Barely true, definitely not relevant. The majority of Linux users will happily tell you the flaws that it has. > Even starting out a potential user has to navigate a ludicrous number of distros False - you're conflating "available options" with "number the user has to care about". A quick Google search "which linux distro should i use" will have Ubuntu topping most of the lists, which is the one users should start with. Not a problem. > as soon as they ask for help they'll likely be told to try a different distro As someone who has asked hundreds of Linux questions from a half-dozen different sources and never once gotten this reply, this is definitely false. > every single manufacturer wants to build their own distro That's not the case for Android or Windows - why would it be the case for Linux? You seem to have had a very bad experience with Linux and the Linux community. I'm sorry about that, but you have to realize that it's very non-representative with the average user experience. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0085253819301851 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S008525381...

by u2077 5y ago

ahelwer 5y ago

Dual-booting needs to become easier and less bug-prone. People need to be able to try Linux before committing their main system. One year ago I tried setting up dual-booting on my system with Ubuntu and it irreparably trashed the Windows boot process; and I needed to do a full nuke & pave. At this time I don't perceive installing Linux to be a good idea unless you're buying a dedicated Linux workstation from System76 or similar.

sergeykish 5y ago
I'd recommend Live USB, flash drives are big enough these days.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> I would argue that linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically. I disagree. There are good reasons people choose not to use Linux and it is annoying that the community continues to tell itself variations of this kind of thing so it doesn't have to face that fact. Even starting out a potential user has to navigate a ludicrous number of distros, all with slightly different ways of doing things and various levels of inadequate and out of date documentation, and as soon as they ask for help they'll likely be told to try a different distro regardless of which one they pick. Even having Linux preinstalled won't change this because, as we've seen, every single manufacturer wants to build their own distro instead of throwing their effort behind an existing one.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
> There are good reasons people choose not to use Linux and it is annoying that the community continues to tell itself variations of this kind of thing so it doesn't have to face that fact. This is true, but I think it's actually irrelevant to the point GP is making. Even if Linux had absolutely no downside for any user in this community, and every person who would want to use it switched to it, Windows is so ubiquitous and does a good enough job that I doubt the given 1% number would raise more than a few percentage points.
- squeaky-clean 5y ago
  I agree. Windows is "free" for most gamers too. If you're building your own PC you need to buy a license, but the majority of steam users are definitely on pre-builts or laptops.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  At 1%, any extra percentage points represents at least a 2x increase. That's not dramatic? I would think a 10%+ increase would be easily achievable between Glorious PC Gaming Master Race, People What Have Entirely Too Serious Hobbies, and People Who Use Computers For Work if said people actually wanted the Linux Desktop experience. At any rate, I can't back up my hypothetical quantification of "if Linux fixed some of its most well known issues" gains, it's just a gut feeling from 20 years of interacting with personal computers and the people who use them.
throw10920 5y ago
> There are good reasons people choose not to use Linux This can be true at the same time as "linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically", and in fact the latter almost certainly is. There's strong scientific evidence for the claim that default values matter (e.g. with organ donation rates[1]), and no reason to believe that that wouldn't apply to Linux, as well. > it is annoying that the community continues to tell itself variations of this kind of thing Barely true, definitely not relevant. The majority of Linux users will happily tell you the flaws that it has. > Even starting out a potential user has to navigate a ludicrous number of distros False - you're conflating "available options" with "number the user has to care about". A quick Google search "which linux distro should i use" will have Ubuntu topping most of the lists, which is the one users should start with. Not a problem. > as soon as they ask for help they'll likely be told to try a different distro As someone who has asked hundreds of Linux questions from a half-dozen different sources and never once gotten this reply, this is definitely false. > every single manufacturer wants to build their own distro That's not the case for Android or Windows - why would it be the case for Linux? You seem to have had a very bad experience with Linux and the Linux community. I'm sorry about that, but you have to realize that it's very non-representative with the average user experience. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0085253819301851 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S008525381...