5 ms·

> 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 L

> 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a ludicrous number of distros, all with slightly different ways of doing things and various levels of inadequate and out of date documentation, and as soon as they ask for help they'll likely be told to try a different distro regardless of which one they pick.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...
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > 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. Of course changing the default to Linux would increase numbers overnight, that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that it is possible to increase the numbers pretty dramatically just by making a good product and that Linux Desktop isn't actually that great. If you want more people using Linux Desktop, the best way to accomplish that is to make it better. > The majority of Linux users will happily tell you the flaws that it has. Maybe, but by far the loudest members are the evangelists. That's what the outside sees, and that's who you invariably end up interacting with when you ask questions. > 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. https://distrochooser.de/ https://distrochooser.de/ is the first link I got for "which distro should i use". It's like one of those "which DBZ character am I" tests. https://linuxnewbieguide.org/overview-of-chapters/chapter-3-choosing-a-linux-distribution/ https://linuxnewbieguide.org/overview-of-chapters/chapter-3-... is the second. But hey, let's say it is Ubuntu since that isn't unreasonable. 20 minutes later that Ubuntu user will encounter their first Arch user while asking a question about why Network Manager is doing something silly, who will naturally advise them to switch to Arch. I've been using Linux Desktop off and on for 20 years now and this hasn't really changed much. > 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. Just more 'Works for me! (tm)", another common thing in literally any discussion about Linux. By saying that this is false just because you have not personally experienced it you are dismissing anyone who has had a different experience. > That's not the case for Android or Windows - why would it be the case for Linux? Actually it kind of is the case for Android, but since they have a unified package repo it isn't as noticeable. Regardless, my assessment is based on notable "Linux installed by default" manufacturers like System76 and Puerism using in house distributions instead of just Ubuntu.

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...

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> 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. Of course changing the default to Linux would increase numbers overnight, that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that it is possible to increase the numbers pretty dramatically just by making a good product and that Linux Desktop isn't actually that great. If you want more people using Linux Desktop, the best way to accomplish that is to make it better. > The majority of Linux users will happily tell you the flaws that it has. Maybe, but by far the loudest members are the evangelists. That's what the outside sees, and that's who you invariably end up interacting with when you ask questions. > 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. https://distrochooser.de/ https://distrochooser.de/ is the first link I got for "which distro should i use". It's like one of those "which DBZ character am I" tests. https://linuxnewbieguide.org/overview-of-chapters/chapter-3-choosing-a-linux-distribution/ https://linuxnewbieguide.org/overview-of-chapters/chapter-3-... is the second. But hey, let's say it is Ubuntu since that isn't unreasonable. 20 minutes later that Ubuntu user will encounter their first Arch user while asking a question about why Network Manager is doing something silly, who will naturally advise them to switch to Arch. I've been using Linux Desktop off and on for 20 years now and this hasn't really changed much. > 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. Just more 'Works for me! (tm)", another common thing in literally any discussion about Linux. By saying that this is false just because you have not personally experienced it you are dismissing anyone who has had a different experience. > That's not the case for Android or Windows - why would it be the case for Linux? Actually it kind of is the case for Android, but since they have a unified package repo it isn't as noticeable. Regardless, my assessment is based on notable "Linux installed by default" manufacturers like System76 and Puerism using in house distributions instead of just Ubuntu.