From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
So why do so many people seem to think Linux needs to become bigger on Desktop?
Personally I am not looking forward to the consequences: capitalism will make sure there will be something on Linux to make money off. They will try to conquer it, introduce walled gardens, stores you will have to pay for, by watching ads.
Android was Open Source once until Google decided to mainstream it.
Android was Open Source once until Google decided to mainstream it.
Android is still open source. Proprietary stuff gets added by the time it gets to the consumer, but the base is open.
It's open-source merely to comply with the GPL license of the kernel, but the fact is that an Android image built only from open source components will be extremely crippled or, depending on your point of view, basically useless. Such an image will not even boot on the majority of devices ; you'll need those sweet proprietary driver blobs if you want your phone to do anything, and a bunch more closed source binaries in order to use Play services.
Not sure exactly how many blobs I need to install Linux on my pc. I know there's proprietary stuff for my Nvidia card (optional) and possibly NIC, but most hardware is supported by the kernel these days?
Also, the play store. That's my biggest issue with Android. Everything depends on the store.
Did you try Aurora store (interface to Google play store, trying to hide your installs) or the more Linux like repository manager f-droid?
Linux has a similar issue though
Don't know why this is downvoted. Even distros like Debian, that are 100% FOSS otherwise, will (often) load some proprietary firmware because otherwise it would barely be functional on any modern computer.
I was afraid someone was going to point out that AOSP exists, but it's not very useful.
The Android that everyone uses and talks about is very closed, because everything depends on the playstore.
This. People don't understand that linux doesn't want to replace your OS. The motivation needs to be intrinsic and therefore there will never be a widespread of linux users because 90% of all people "don't care" about their OS. They want to turn on their computer and use any browser to surf the net or check their emails.
I used to argue about this from the position of "wider adoption means more support and a richer ecosystem", until I eventually realised that it would include more predators.
I'll need to make the time to contribute to it myself instead. If I want free software, I should provide free contributions too.
Ah yes, late stage capitalism. Communism was the answer all along. /S
Edit: I love how evryone ignored /S for sarcasm. Just to clarify, yes I know communism is ideal on paper but doesn't work in real life and yes, capitalism while having its flaws is the only alternate we have.
because of course, pointing out that capitalism will cause a specific problem can only be a disguised attempt to resuscitate Joseph Stalin.
Guess communism jokes are old now. Sad times.
actually I think the /s completely reversed the joke making it feel like you were mocking the other dude for potentially considering something else than capitalism
Damn I see it now.
(Sorry for my bad England)
I don't have the answer to the best form of government, but communism doesn't work. That has already been proven?
And capitalism is actually pretty good, until it turns everything into ads and destroys the planet :-/ I wish there was something better.
Don't know why I'm commenting this on a Linux thread but I would like to invite you to read a bit more about socialism, what communism is and why in way shape or form was ever attempted. A true communist society would require a lot of thing that are simply not possible without a massive shift in culture, society and relations to power and globalization. Any communism you are thinking about is mostly marketing communism by the the "communist" countries themselves that started basically as a primitive form of revolution and got stuck in the phase after it in which basically created a authoritarian regime that didn't even attempt to be true communism. Noam Chomsky has a very cool video speaking about leninism which he goes into detail. Don't fall on me for the comment it was just an invite
Yes sadly, I see your point. Big corporates are ruining everything. This is not to say I advocate communism but it's sad to see the only alternative to communism devolving into a toxic system.
You don't need a unified version, you need easily accessible linux hardware (desktop, laptop, phone, etc.). People do not give a swimming fuck about which OS they're using. Whatever's on their hardware will become their main OS.
https://puri.sm https://slimbook.es https://system76.com/ https://tuxedocomputers.com , they are all doing a good job of leading the charge and trying to occupy most segments, but what they lack is still QA, ease of use, and most importantly marketing and support from the linux community. They need to dump huge amounts of money into marketing (which they probably don't have) and the linux community should altogether stop buying bullshit pseudo-supported linux laptops from Dell, Lenovo, and HP.
There are linux shops out there. Stop giving your money to other companies and wishing on linux dominance. It's nonsensical.
People do not give a swimming fuck about which OS they're using
Yep. I was an outlier and used to care. Now as long as it does what I want I really can't give a shit. Due to the fact that it doesn't come standard on many machines it's an extra annoyance to set up. And you'd better do your homework to make sure what you bought is supported.
I have a whole life and a bunch of hobbies that are more interesting to me than religiously following which hardware might work, constantly tweaking flags, and running things in wine. It's a fine hobby for those that love it but I don't anymore. And most people never do.
Yep, if it looks slick, works, and comes standard, people will use it. Just like cars for me: I just want to use it, not understand how it works in order to use it.
Exactly my feelings. I understand, at a basic level, how both cars and computers work. I fix motorcycles as a hobby. I work in system reliability as a profession. I don't have the inclination to tinker on cars or computers in my spare time. I want to turn it on, press the pedal, and vroom vroom off into the night.
You don't need to learn Linux to use it.
Just download any mainstream distro and it will be fine!
Just download any mainstream distro and it will be fine!
That is already a step too far. If it doesn't come pre-installed, the majority will not use nor know how to install it. I bet a bunch of people don't even know what an OS is. If you replaced windows with some riced KDE desktop on the majority of user's computers, most would think it's an update and would go on with their lives.
I can see a future where it is not permitted to install only one OS. Either you have a micro os that lets you download a full one or you have to decide the OS before getting the pc. The idea of hardware default coming with a proprietary os is just crap imo.
I think it'll be a long time before that's true for the layperson. I also think that it'll be an even longer time before that's true for the hobbiest. But I do agree it's coming and that it's crap. I think it'll be like game consoles (or like Mac is now) where you pick your flavor, buy your system, and it'll take a team of dedicated crackers to get us access to our own stuff.
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Pushing a certain OS (or browser, or anything for profit) is absolutely unacceptable. We want a pc, not a "windows pc" by default. The OS market is pretty much a monopoly up to this point and presumably for the last 5-10 years, MS has only made this much profit because it was forced on consumers.
@elouboub @GravelPieceOfSword has to work
Definitely. If it doesn't or if a CLI has to be opened for a single thing, the majority will not use it.
A pretty important point is that Linux doesn't come installed on many devices. For most people, they buy a computer with Windows or Mac already installed and they're satisfied with their experience. They don't feel the need to find a distro, mount a USB stick, navigate through the BIOS, run an installer that wipes their hard drive, and relearn another operating system when Windows and Mac does everything that they want. When Linux comes pre installed on devices such as the Steam Deck or Chromebooks, Linux usage soars, though these devices have to use Linux because they need a heavily customized OS for their specific purpose. Laptops and desktops intended for casual use that come pre installed with Linux are far less common, so for the overwhelming majority of users, Windows or Mac is what they get and what they end up using. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft switches from charging for Windows to paying manufacturers to put Windows on their computers to get users into the Microsoft eco system if Linux became an actual competitor one day
According to StatCounter, Android accounts for 39.2% of OS marketshare. Android is Linux. However, that is not what people think of when they advocate for "Linux."
But, that's what happens when you want Linux to get a majority of marketshare. You don't get your free software friendly GNU desktop, you get a weird proprietary locked down thing.
There isn't one simple reason for it. There's a fairly large set of complicated interrelated reasons some of which require going back over 40 years of history to explain. If things had gone differently we'd have had a different result. For instance, just off the top of my head here, if free software had arrived earlier the network effect where everyone wanted one particular operating system because it's what everyone else was using and therefore all the software was written for it might not have happened. People would've been free to build and distribute things for whichever OS they preferred. If Bill Gates hadn't been such a sharp business dealer, maybe his company wouldn't have amassed the vast wealth and influence required to dominate things so thoroughly back in the 1980s. If American antitrust law hadn't been defanged maybe it would've stopped him, because many of Microsoft's business practices that allowed them to get the monopoly we're still recovering from were quite despicable. If DRM (digital restrictions management) hadn't caused problems for Linux such as preventing it playing DVDs for the first few years they were popular, maybe it would've got further by now. If education systems around the world did a better job encouraging more people to be curious about how the things they rely on actually work, maybe the switch to free software would be going faster.
Anyway, it's one thing that is slowly going in the right direction for the most part.
Most of the desktop marketiss work machines, most people just us a phone now.
And half of those use a linux kernel (the other half is derived from NextSTEP :p).
Then there's the steamdeck, which proves people really don't pick operating systems, they just use what's there... which is really the point.. you don't 'adopt' an OS, you just use shit. If it happens to run linux, then cool.
I picked the Steam Deck because it runs Linux but then again, I'm a nerd.
The number of laptops I've seen in hotel lobbies seems to suggest otherwise.
I don't think "one unified distro", or even an "official distro", is possible without taking critical parts of Linux private and closed-source. As long as the freedom exists people will make their own "versions" of (GNU/)Linux.
I think certified distro would go long way. Say this is what it takes to a certified workstation so that people can do basic things using the same tools and guides.
You're basically describing the Linux Standard Base, which was abandoned back in 2015 and the way it was handled was somewhat controversial.
But there is a lot of informal standardization between Linuxes, nonetheless.
If any of you are in a position like, teacher, professor, IT... make sure you explicitly support Linux usage. Try hard not to require software that doesn't run on Linux. I think this would help a lot.
no one unified distro to keep things simple (thread OP)
Debian. Ubuntu. Arch.
In some sense Gentoo, because it keeps configs simple.
Juat to give a good refeeence for tech illiterate people are. Neeva was a searxh engine that shur down a few month ago. They used a subscription model. They had little probelm getting people to pay they had a problem explaining what a search engine was. Their biggest hurdle was, i am not lying about this, getting people to change their settings. Yeah the thing that takes a few click.
Most people care about privacy and what os they use to that same extent as brand of motor oil they use.
It's a tough sale when the item/service being sold changes someone's workflow or tool set. Hype helps remove this friction. Strangely enough, when you force someone into a default state, they dont act to move to what is comfortable. Instead, they try to work with it and thereby become more comfortable. This is also why keeping it stupid simple and obnoxiously large buttons makes it easier to introduce people. The less steps or transitions are also preferable because people want to have less effort and not be overloaded with options that look important enough that they need to know what to do. Average joe does not want to do research on things they don't know anything about. Unfortunately, settings pages(and other custom tools like command lines) are full of the opposite of what I stated here.