Comedy gold.

Why is this thread magical? It's like a magnet for drama.

You're looking at it from the perspective of a Linux convert, getting people to switch ecosystems is not easy. I used to manage the IT department for a big marketing company and trying to convince the marketing folks to ditch their expensive, terrible to manage Macs was like asking them to sacrifice their children.

The fact of the matter is that for average home users even the slightest bar to entry to a new OS is enough to make it so they won't consider it. And as much as Linux users love the fact that you can make it lightweight and more private, that's just not something the general public cares about. If they did Facebook wouldn't exist. So the advantages we're talking about aren't perceived to be advantages for 95% of the people out there. That's just the reality of the situation.

"There is no doubt that it's more convenient for most people. But most people can be taught to use spreadsheet/presentation/word editor software everyday around the world" - This is where you lose the argument. You can definitely teach people to use something new, it's convincing them to try in the first place that's the problem.

You also misinterpret me, I'm not saying that Windows is better. I'm saying that neither of them are better. They are just tools. Different tools are appropriate for different jobs. No different than the fact that you wouldn't use a hammer to do a saws job. I happen to do a lot of stuff that just requires Windows so it makes sense for me to use windows as a primary device OS. But I'm a special case... for the 95% of people out there that use a home computer to open a browser and that's all, the barrier to Linux adoption is that they're just used to Windows. It might sound like that's a small thing, but it's not.

Yes, all of that.

I'd like an OS to be a tool for my benefit. I don't want it to send information back home and display ads in the start menu. I don't even want a start menu. Not even just for being lightweight, I just genuinely enjoy terminals, tiling WM and CLI tools more in many situations. What's great is that I do have the option to do that right now. With Windows it's afaik not possible to deviate that much from its design, or at least I don't know how.

Now obviously if someone doesn't care about any of that, but prioritizes "it just works" with regards to hardware and most (though not all) software instead, Windows is the better choice.

I just wanted to point out that some of us use Linux because we actually prefer it to Windows and the thread - at least in my perception, I may be off here - at points read as if that couldn't possibly be the case.

That said, while I am quite happy with the amount of native titles compared to our market share, there are facets of Gog's Linux support that are genuinely lacking and can rightfully be called out. But wanting support for a third party mod on a game ran via Wine, that's sold as Windows exclusive I'd diplomatically describe as "optimistic".

Anyways, here's more baby penguin.

Linux is meant to be a fully functional OS, games and all. That's why Wine is a thing... That is why there ARE Linux native games, double and triple A titles too.
Linux is more secure.
As related to the previous point, no need for antivirus.(saving expense and/or hassle and AV's are their own security issue)
Linux allows more control over ones own system.
Linux generally runs a bit more efficiently than windows.
Linux allows more privacy, like every other big company, Microsoft is constantly looking to gather your information, including through OS.
Easier to get support for Linux.
Linux is free. Where as Microsoft asks for a obscene amount, especially if it's not bundled with a system.

Also, did you know Wine is short for Wine is not emulator? It's more a compatibility layer I believe. Regardless many games that run on Wine run just as well as they do on Windows.

You're kidding yourself if you think Linux is more secure than any other OS. It's only more secure in same way that MacOS is more secure... it has small market share and so less malicious software is built to target it. Other than that it's great big pile of complex code with all the same potential to exploit as any other great big pile of complex code.

In general all your points are overly rosy interpretations of the positive aspects of Linux. They are true but only to the extent to which an end user understands or cares about each of them.

Hm. I think I touched upon many of these points already.

The barrier of entry for Windows/Mac users to swap to Linux does exist, and of course is less than people think. However small though, it exists, and its perception is that it's much bigger than it actually is. I.e. People perceive Linux to be this complicated hydra monster where you need to chop off multiple heads in order to open a browser.

I then explained how to combat this perception - and provided an example of how to make it work. PR and marketing doesn't exist for Linux, so that's not how we can do it. No matter how many fringe newspaper articles there are promoting Linux, people just won't read them. But, if you simply force people to use it, especially from an early age, boom. Done. Once you go Linux, you won't go back. Yes. I said that.

In Finland, the universities make you use Linux, as they don't provide an alternative for the staff on their laptops. Force them to use it. Simple as that. Once they realise it's not the devil incarnate and everything works, and is smooth sailing, with the added benefits that Linux offers, they become true converts. I'm not sure why you think this is an argument, or that there is a 'winning' and 'losing' 'side'. We are two people with different views about a matter, discussing the merits of each view. I doubt I can convince you of anything, and you probably won't be able to convince me of anything, no matter how open-minded we are, because after all - this is the internet. I personally engage on such matters in such a way, because I might learn something new. That's it.

Regards to 'teach people to use something new - you have to convince them to try it out first', I discussed just prior to this.

Linux is better - and if people tried it, they would know - therefore, make every effort for them to try it - even if by force. Ah yes - the both sides argument - one is made to a specific job - the other, a different job. I am still wondering what these are...?

Also, you still have to convince people (not just me anymore, there are some others in the thread too) that Windows is definitely required to do certain hammering jobs that a Linux saw couldn't be bent to do (I hate these loose analogies lol). You have yet to provide any example where the task could not be handled in Linux. At this point I'm just curious what it could be.

You earlier mentioned that Linux advantages were only relevant to 5% of the people (which I don't actually believe for a second, as seen by the ridiculously popular VPN services for much desired privacy and security) - I wonder if your example will be relevant to just 5% of the people.

The way that you're talking makes you sound like a linux evangelist. I never said linux was bad. I use linux. But you're clearly ignoring the inherent problems with it.

It's not as simple to get it to work with non native software as you seem to think it is for non-technical people. That alone is a non-starter for most people. Your idea that it can be combated with education is just naive. Education about how to overcome obstacles doesn't remove obstacles, it just makes them manageable, which isn't enough for most people.

There are thousands upon thousands of applications that people use that don't work natively on Linux. Your expectation that people will switch applications or research to find workarounds to make them work is utter nonsense unless taken in your use case; forcing them to switch. Good luck with that.

The other thing that your clear bias seems to make you incapable of seeing is that the majority of reasons you think it's better don't matter to almost anyone. It's a small group that cares about privacy nowadays in terms of technology. It's a small group that cares about how lightweight their OS is. You and I may care about those things, but be realistic, the majority of people don't.

"Linux is better - and if people tried it, they would know - therefore, make every effort for them to try it - even if by force." - The fact that you would even consider this shows you have a serious bias in regards to this discussion (which is what I meant by argument by the way, I didn't literally mean I was arguing with you)

You want examples of things linux is the wrong tool for? - How about any application built to run natively in windows? For any business this automatically voids any support for their software, which is a big deal. I could go on, but the way that you're talking shows that it's not really worth it.

I like Linux, I'm just not a Linux zealot. I'm not married to any one OS I just use the ones that make sense for the situation. You clearly are married to your OS, and that's cool, but it means you might not have the best perspective to have an objective discussion about it. I'm not trying to be insulting, it's just the impression I get from your comments.

Nowadays I use Windows and Linux at home use about 50:50. Outside of gaming, I don't see much benefit doing stuff on Windows, instead of Linux. The Linux usage rose especially after I bought a Raspberry Pi 4 (4MB version) which is now connected to my TV and is pretty much my main media player system. I many times also use it for normal computer stuff like using web browser etc. as well, using the TV as my monitor. Heck I can even do my work with it, it has Thunderbird for mail, Libre Office for any documents and of course I can use VPN and a remote desktop application on it to connect to my work network, just like I do with my work laptop running Windows 10.

Saying that Linux is only better for "servers"... I guess that is supposed to mean only some heavy duty web or ftp or such server without a GUI, professional stuff only, right? But then, "server" means any computer which can be connected from elsewhere, even within your home network. For instance, I have OpenSSH running on both of my Linux boxes (this gaming laptop where I am writing this, and that tiny Raspberry Pi computer which is connected to a 2TB USB hard drive though. That is so that I can effortlessly copy stuff from and to to them, including my Windows PCs (using e.g. WinSCP).

So as my Linux PCs are running OpenSSH, they are ssh servers. Your Windows PC is also a server whenever you run some p2p client on it.

Also, I have a couple of times had either Linux system in a "locked" state where I can't do anything to it except power it down (black screen, mouse or keyboard not responding etc.)... but I've just connected to the stuck system from another computer using ssh, checked which process is causing the problem, and killed it. In Windows, I would have had to just forcibly boot down and restart the system, possibly causing file (system) corruption in the process.

It just feels to me it is much easier to connect and move stuff over network with Linux than Windows PCs. When you set up Linux PCs as "ssh servers", then also your Windows PCs can connect to them quite easily, using e.g. putty and WinSCP. Or set up NFS to share folders between them etc.

Anyway, the main reason I prefer using Linux is that with it I get the feeling that all the changes and updates that they introducing are to benefit me, the user. Either added security, bugs squashed, new features I might like to use etc.

With Windows (and Android too), I get the feeling that many of the updates are not introduced to benefit the user, but the company (Microsoft and Google). Like how MS "updated" Windows 7 so that it has forced and hidden telemetry within it, similarly to Windows 10... how was that supposed to benefit me again? Or adding the nag screens to update to Windows 10, was that supposed to benefit me?

Linux is about "how can we serve your needs the best?"
Windows/Android is more and more about "How can we benefit the most from our users?"

Wow.

Usually when this sort of thing happens, I've either hit a nerve, or just stepped on to a landmine (i.e. the poster is somehow wholly attached to the matter and takes it personally).

I'm going to slowly back away now...since you've become incredibly defensive and combative, and are actually focusing not on the arguments, but the arguer.

About an operating system. Yes folks, it does apparently happen. I'm sure you're not 'trying' to be insulting, you just are.

In any case, I learnt nothing new from your (lack of) concrete examples and your (wrong) perceptions of users around the world and their priorities.

If anyone else wants to discuss this in an open-minded manner, please do so. But I think you've just killed the conversation, at least between us.

Shame, we could have both learnt something new, instead of 'waging war' on the interweb, ahahahha.

I am sorry if I came across as combative, that’s not my intention. I was just trying to point out that your comments exhibit a huge bias. Based on the comments you made, some of which were advocating forced adoption of Linux, I thought it was worth pointing out how that sounds. Again, I don’t want to insult you, truly sorry that I did. I probably could’ve worded what i was trying to say better.

Your indirect claim that Linux is solely more secure through obscurity is false. Linux has a permission system that is very good at preventing things you haven't chosen to install, from installing. And a system of verification so you can have a better idea what you can trust to allow to install.

And you lumping in every other point together... Oh yeah, people don't understand cost, who gets "money is good", who cares about money? Apparently not you with this fallacious vague argument

I'd love to switch my Windows computers to Linux. Main reason = DRM free

But I won't, for these (main) reasons:
- Not all my games run on Linux, with or without Wine.
- Linux is no good for DAW/VST use. (yes, I want to continue using the software/hardware I already have)
Other reasons:
- Other software that doesn't run on Linux.
- (often newer or less popular) hardware* that doesn't have a Linux driver/software.
*or incomplete feature set supported. Or spending an unacceptable amount of time researching.
It's not that I don't always understand what's behind it... but that doesn't mean I'm going to just buy new hardware.
- I hate it when some useful tool with a nice GUI on Windows -> alternative on Linux = (often) some script or command line software with badly written or no documentation.
Example: gogrepo.py
Yes it works, even on Windows, once you figure it out. And I'm not trying to be ungrateful - the author made it in his/her free time, without asking compensation. (So my thanks for that!) Sadly enough, there's no GUI alternative. I haven't used it in a couple of years, so I'd have to figure it out all over again. That's never the case when software has a GUI.

Sure, it might be the better alternative for some other people and their specific needs. Hell, probably even for the "average user" that just wants to browse some internet, type a letter, edit a few pictures, etc.
But that's not me.

I wasn't saying that it has no security features, only that the argument you were making that it has bullet proof security is straight up false and I provided a simple example as to why.

I lumped the other ones together cause I had previously discussed them in this thread... but if you think the $60 license for windows home that is hidden in the cost of buying a new computer is enough to sway an average home user all the power to you.

Cool - no worries. Wording is tricky, especially on the interweb.

Now, why would I be biased about a free open source piece of software, that I have no stake in?

*confuzzled*

I mean, is this a 'fanboy' syndrome, where one associates with a product so much that any criticism towards it, is a critique on one personally? Ok, don't answer that.

To explain more about 'advocating forced adoption of Linux' - I thought it pretty clear I didn't mean 'forced' as in 'held at gunpoint' to use Linux. Rather 'forced' that you offer your work laptops and desktops with Linux first and foremost. Making it a hassle to get a Windows/Mac one. This I shown with my example at universities.

And I mean, there are certainly many applications out there made for one OS only, i.e. Windows applications. MacOs apps etc. These might not work at all in Linux, and even if they might be WINEd, no support or guarantees, like you said.

But if you're talking about small proprietary in-house developed software/tools for whatever, finance or marketing, then to make them work for Windows and Mac, you've already made them platform agnostic. Whether it's by the programming language, or by making it cloud based, or whatever. You've crossed that bridge. So it doesn't actually matter for Linux.

Case 2 - the OS specific software that's not platform agnostic, it's only on Windows and nobody's got timeee for dat, to port it to...anywhere. Screw those Mac users. But also everyone else. If we're talking about utility software that's popular, there's a very high probability Linux has an opensource alternative. Very high chance.

If it's some rinky dink firm-specific proprietary software, then devs made the decision to make it only for MacOS or Windows - and so be it. But if I hear complaints that Mac users want to use their macs and can't, I'm gonna laugh at it. See prior point regarding platfrom agnostic software.

I mean that's just off the top of my head. You, as a professional could probably enlighten us a lot more, especially with concrete/better/any examples of when Linux just isn't an option and Microsoft wins all day. Nobody is even biting an Apple.

But I think we need to veer this back on topic and talk about Linux gaming or at Linux desktop at home usage. We've kinda exhausted the 'Linux at the generic office' (off) topic now. But I'll leave that for later posts. Note to self - Linux gaming is awesome, and Linux desktop @home pretty amazing.

I agree with everything that your saying. I never disagreed with it, beyond me thinking that adoption and software support is more problematic than you think it is. I was looking at it from the perspective of my experience with software change management in organizations and applying that to home users (I'm positive it correlates well) and based on my own appetite for it. If me, as an advanced user, isn't overly interested in tweaking stuff to get it to work I doubt other people would be either. (Though maybe that's just cause I don't want to do my job on my devices at home).

I think there's mainly a philosophical difference between us. Being that you think it's possible to convince people to change most of the software they use to open source alternatives to use Linux, and I think that's not something most people will accept. Especially given the fact that most open source alternatives I've tried have a lot of the functionality of their proprietary counterparts, but not all.

I've already given you a concrete example of why it's problematic. You will not get any vendor support for software running on Linux that isn't natively designed to run on it. That matters to people who are buying software other than games or hobby utilities.

There's other stuff, like people having software specific legacy data, Teceem already brought up VSTs and DAWs, which is actually the primary motivator for me using mostly Windows at home. That and a bunch of microsoft specific stuff I need for work.