3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

throw10920 5y ago
> Of course changing the default to Linux would increase numbers overnight, that's not what I'm arguing. I now understand what you mean by this, but it took me reading your comment three times to get it. You quoted "I would argue that linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically." and then wrote right afterward "I disagree", which did make it sound like that was the thing you were disagreeing with. I think that one of the implicit assumptions of "linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically" was "without any other significant changes happening". I think that this is a reasonable assumption, because you can always imagine some extreme scenario e.g. Microsoft announces that it's going to hand over all user data to some large government, and millions of people stop using Windows overnight, or maybe they start charging $500/year for Windows 11 Home Edition - both highly unlikely, but also both causing Linux to gain marketshare without becoming a default. So, the assumption "barring major event" is a sound one. ...especially given that the quality improvement necessary to see a major Linux adoption uptick would be...probably a once-in-a-century computing event, given how much better Linux has become (and worse Windows has become) over the past decade with no significant change in Linux desktop use. > https://distrochooser.de/ https://distrochooser.de/ is the first link I got for "which distro should i use" That's because you altered my query from "which linux distro should i use" to "which distro should i use". Actually using the query I cited comes up with [1], which lists "Ubuntu" as the very first item, along with that same value being cited in the Google infobox in the search results. Expanding "distro" to "distribution" (which a new Linux convert is likely to do) also gives similar results, so your example isn't representative. > 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 This is something that you're repeatedly cited, but I've never had happen to me, nor even seen happen to someone else in an online conversation, after going through thousands of questions... > Just more 'Works for me! (tm)", another common thing in literally any discussion about Linux. These situations aren't remotely comparable. "Just works for me!" takes a single data point and extrapolates it to invalidate others' experiences. I'm taking thousands of datapoints (things that I've read: forum posts, Stack Exchange threads, IRC chat sessions) and generalizing that to say that the experience that you're describing is unlikely - which is 100% valid, because unlike hardware issues, every web search is distinct. If "switch to <other distro>" is common advice, then the probability of me encountering it once as I search the internet approaches 1.0 very quickly. So, yes, if I've trawled through thousands of various kinds of internet posts about Linux and never encountered someone saying that a question-asker should switch distros, then it is not "likely" at all. [1] https://itsfoss.com/best-linux-beginners/ https://itsfoss.com/best-linux-beginners/

throw10920 5y ago

> Of course changing the default to Linux would increase numbers overnight, that's not what I'm arguing. I now understand what you mean by this, but it took me reading your comment three times to get it. You quoted "I would argue that linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically." and then wrote right afterward "I disagree", which did make it sound like that was the thing you were disagreeing with. I think that one of the implicit assumptions of "linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically" was "without any other significant changes happening". I think that this is a reasonable assumption, because you can always imagine some extreme scenario e.g. Microsoft announces that it's going to hand over all user data to some large government, and millions of people stop using Windows overnight, or maybe they start charging $500/year for Windows 11 Home Edition - both highly unlikely, but also both causing Linux to gain marketshare without becoming a default. So, the assumption "barring major event" is a sound one. ...especially given that the quality improvement necessary to see a major Linux adoption uptick would be...probably a once-in-a-century computing event, given how much better Linux has become (and worse Windows has become) over the past decade with no significant change in Linux desktop use. > https://distrochooser.de/ https://distrochooser.de/ is the first link I got for "which distro should i use" That's because you altered my query from "which linux distro should i use" to "which distro should i use". Actually using the query I cited comes up with [1], which lists "Ubuntu" as the very first item, along with that same value being cited in the Google infobox in the search results. Expanding "distro" to "distribution" (which a new Linux convert is likely to do) also gives similar results, so your example isn't representative. > 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 This is something that you're repeatedly cited, but I've never had happen to me, nor even seen happen to someone else in an online conversation, after going through thousands of questions... > Just more 'Works for me! (tm)", another common thing in literally any discussion about Linux. These situations aren't remotely comparable. "Just works for me!" takes a single data point and extrapolates it to invalidate others' experiences. I'm taking thousands of datapoints (things that I've read: forum posts, Stack Exchange threads, IRC chat sessions) and generalizing that to say that the experience that you're describing is unlikely - which is 100% valid, because unlike hardware issues, every web search is distinct. If "switch to <other distro>" is common advice, then the probability of me encountering it once as I search the internet approaches 1.0 very quickly. So, yes, if I've trawled through thousands of various kinds of internet posts about Linux and never encountered someone saying that a question-asker should switch distros, then it is not "likely" at all. [1] https://itsfoss.com/best-linux-beginners/ https://itsfoss.com/best-linux-beginners/