![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Will Linux ever be as popular as Windows?
- Thread starter HardLiner
- Start date
- Status
sitheris
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,736
Complete elimination of command line and editing config files is probably the biggest thing that needs to be done
heh...right...
Better application install
Better driver install
...Thats all Linux needs. Linux has made alot of ground in the past few years. Now that Linux can be made visually to be better looking that both Vista and even Mac OS, I think it will be easier for people to use.
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
Just as soon as MS puts a stamp on it it will. Right now you need a major company with a history of great desktop support and expirence to say. Yes this is ready for the consumer.
When that happens it will be reworked. It will have a codename from MS that makes people anticipate it that will leak out without a mention of it being based on a linux kernle. And it will be long after MS aquires a company known for a linux distro.
When it comes out some schmuck will login to it. Do an LS and scream linux distro. But they will be wrong. For microsoft will rebrand it completely.
But in essence... the core.. will be Linux.
So yes and no I guess.
When that happens it will be reworked. It will have a codename from MS that makes people anticipate it that will leak out without a mention of it being based on a linux kernle. And it will be long after MS aquires a company known for a linux distro.
When it comes out some schmuck will login to it. Do an LS and scream linux distro. But they will be wrong. For microsoft will rebrand it completely.
But in essence... the core.. will be Linux.
So yes and no I guess.
Linux needs less versions. Look at Vista. People are complaining about there being 5 versions. Look all all the different versions of Linux and then all of the different GUI's you can put on top of each one.
People need to be able to walk into a store and be able to ask for Linux and shown a shelf with 2-3 choices max. If people have trouble choosing between Vista home basic and home premium, how can you expect them to make a choice between Red Hat and Ubuntu.
The other problem is that most people run whatever came on their PC when they bought it at Best Buy or where ever. Someone with deep pockets needs to convince computer companies like Dell to make a Linux OS the default choice instead of windows. Only then will Linux really take off in the average home.
I've always had the stance that I want Linux on my phone, network devices, microwave, etc; but I want Windows on my PC and Servers.
People need to be able to walk into a store and be able to ask for Linux and shown a shelf with 2-3 choices max. If people have trouble choosing between Vista home basic and home premium, how can you expect them to make a choice between Red Hat and Ubuntu.
The other problem is that most people run whatever came on their PC when they bought it at Best Buy or where ever. Someone with deep pockets needs to convince computer companies like Dell to make a Linux OS the default choice instead of windows. Only then will Linux really take off in the average home.
I've always had the stance that I want Linux on my phone, network devices, microwave, etc; but I want Windows on my PC and Servers.
Just as soon as MS puts a stamp on it it will. Right now you need a major company with a history of great desktop support and expirence to say. Yes this is ready for the consumer.
When that happens it will be reworked. It will have a codename from MS that makes people anticipate it that will leak out without a mention of it being based on a linux kernle. And it will be long after MS aquires a company known for a linux distro.
When it comes out some schmuck will login to it. Do an LS and scream linux distro. But they will be wrong. For microsoft will rebrand it completely.
But in essence... the core.. will be Linux.
So yes and no I guess.
So you mean it will be something like Mac OSX.
griffinhart
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,294
Aren't there 4 versions? Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate. Am I missing one?
But I definately agree with your point. MS has been heavily criticized for the "confusing SKUs" they are using for Vista. It doesn't even begin to compare to the confusion that is Linux distribution.
Sabrewulf165
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,974
Better driver install and MUCH better native/generic hardware support. I can't even get into the GUI with my 8800GTX and the latest Ubuntu (supposedly a user-friendly distro)
Yeah, I understand that linux is a good operating system, but really, it is NOT user-friendly at all. If I can't do a basic install and expect to have a fully-working GUI, then there are some issues at hand. Just compare a Linux install to a Vista install. Vista asks you almost nothing, and the install completes relatively quickly, especially considering the size.
Installing software in Linux is not easy, getting the o/s up and running is not easy with driver installs and such, and everything is changing too quickly. New software versions are good, but seriously ... businesses can't be like OMG! Ubuntu v1.5.2.4.5.2 came out today! We haven't upgraded for at least 3 months, we need to roll out this new version!
Yeah ... businesses can't do that. It's a good thing that Vista took 5 years to come out.
Installing software in Linux is not easy, getting the o/s up and running is not easy with driver installs and such, and everything is changing too quickly. New software versions are good, but seriously ... businesses can't be like OMG! Ubuntu v1.5.2.4.5.2 came out today! We haven't upgraded for at least 3 months, we need to roll out this new version!
Yeah ... businesses can't do that. It's a good thing that Vista took 5 years to come out.
For the "consumer" world there are only 3 versions of Vista. For businesses there are 2 additional versions that you dont see on the store shelves.
I dont think Linux will ever gain significant ground vs Windows and likely will only continue to struggle vs Apple computers.
Unless all "common" applications, uses, games etc work on Linux without having to be a "techie" to make it happen the Linux OS will stay out of the game.
I dont think Linux will ever gain significant ground vs Windows and likely will only continue to struggle vs Apple computers.
Unless all "common" applications, uses, games etc work on Linux without having to be a "techie" to make it happen the Linux OS will stay out of the game.
enterprise edition...but that kinda doesn't count
I don't think it ever will.
If Linux ever aimed to be as popular it would need to be sold on OEM systems. So instead of Dell with Windows, people would be Dell with Debian or whatever. In all honesty, I don't see a reason not to run Linux in a business environment at this point, aside from the lack of web-based excel.
I am definitely planing to move my family over to Linux of Windows on Linux-VM in the mid-term.
Upgrade vs. Full, retail vs. OEM, x86 vs. x64, the 'N' versions.
However at the end of the day it's all the same windows and as such people can switch from one to another with little trouble. Having started using debian and apt-get, I was thoroughly confused when I had to use SUSE and yast. And then I had to install MySQL on a "Redhat 9" system at my university. Since it was "facilitized" there was no YAST, no APT-GET no nothing. There was no RPM for MySQL server 5.0, for all I knew and the binary distribution did not work either, so I had to install from source. Not a fun experience.
As I Lay Dying
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 975
ugh....getting rid of command line, would be the worst thing ever! Sorry I know many people hate it, I did too, but you know what, when you use it and get used to it. Its faster, and simpler. I know if the I break X or any part of the gui, the command line is there to fix it.
As per install, well installing I cant say which is better, Vista is pretty damn easy, but hey so is ubuntu, sorry they even have an installer through windows (not stable yet). Sorry but ubuntu, suse, red hat/fedora or dead simple to install, same with debian.....the only people I know who cant figure it out and do it, are the same people who cant boot from a windows disc and install windows. Sorry but anyone claiming * gnu/linux is hard to install has not even attempted a recent version.
Application install, sorry dead simple, and package managers more or less blow windows out of the water, distros now have both gui and command line installer that install packages and dependencies all for you. Not to mention package managers keep your apps relatively up to date. Its way easier then the search the web and install.
Driver is install is more or less the same as above, granted if you cant get the binary version of your app or driver, then yes, it sucks, and compiling blows, at first.
I think whats holding it back is hardware drivers from manufacturers, especially wireless drivers. Also the other thing holding it back, which is why I love linux is the lack of drm, but if joe blow cant watch a video, or listen to a song he got off itunes, then said distribution has failed them. As the above poster mentioned OEM installs would help, and also having gui front ends for text based configurations, for people who do not like them, or who are too lazy to learn.
As per install, well installing I cant say which is better, Vista is pretty damn easy, but hey so is ubuntu, sorry they even have an installer through windows (not stable yet). Sorry but ubuntu, suse, red hat/fedora or dead simple to install, same with debian.....the only people I know who cant figure it out and do it, are the same people who cant boot from a windows disc and install windows. Sorry but anyone claiming * gnu/linux is hard to install has not even attempted a recent version.
Application install, sorry dead simple, and package managers more or less blow windows out of the water, distros now have both gui and command line installer that install packages and dependencies all for you. Not to mention package managers keep your apps relatively up to date. Its way easier then the search the web and install.
Driver is install is more or less the same as above, granted if you cant get the binary version of your app or driver, then yes, it sucks, and compiling blows, at first.
I think whats holding it back is hardware drivers from manufacturers, especially wireless drivers. Also the other thing holding it back, which is why I love linux is the lack of drm, but if joe blow cant watch a video, or listen to a song he got off itunes, then said distribution has failed them. As the above poster mentioned OEM installs would help, and also having gui front ends for text based configurations, for people who do not like them, or who are too lazy to learn.
Isn't something like 70% of the internet composed of linux servers? Doesn't windows live run from linux servers? Or have I been misinformed?
it may not be as popular on the desktop, but for a server I can see it taking over.
Getting rid of the command line would indeed be the worst thing ever. Once you use it, and learn it, you'll come to love it.
it may not be as popular on the desktop, but for a server I can see it taking over.
Getting rid of the command line would indeed be the worst thing ever. Once you use it, and learn it, you'll come to love it.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
Depending on where you look, *nix is king. More webservers run apache (on *Nix) than IIS on windows, for example.
My company owns about 100 computers total.
75 of them run linux.
As a desktop computer, for your average Joe, I just don't see it happening. There are various issues the Linux community would need to address before it could ever happen, and most of it has been mentioned here already. I for one would hate to see the removal of the terminal, as I use Linux myself. I think the average user doesn't want to have to deal with text commands, which is fine. However, It can stay, just like there's a terminal/command prompt in both OSX and Windows. There just needs to be easy ways to get certain things done without having to resort to it, which is happening anyway. Still, sometimes you can't beat using the terminal.
I just wonder if the X Window system will ever be replaced. I highly doubt it since unfortunately backwards-compatibility is a huge issue.
I just wonder if the X Window system will ever be replaced. I highly doubt it since unfortunately backwards-compatibility is a huge issue.
I probably will catch flack for this, but...
What Linux needs is consistency and a central vision among all distrobutions. Its strengths are also its weaknesses. There are some very talented people in the open source community, but right now there is nothing really unifying their efforts.
With commercial operating systems and software, you have direction from executives and such. That is sorely lacking in the open source world. You have pockets of creativity, but once again, nothing to join those creative elements.
Also, the whole distribution thing hurts Linux. Linux has x market share, but that market share has to be divided by y distributions. That will always hurt your numbers. It also causes confusion among normal people. Have you ever had to explain what and why distributions exist? It's not fun. For this very reason is why we have presidential primaries.
What Linux needs is consistency and a central vision among all distrobutions. Its strengths are also its weaknesses. There are some very talented people in the open source community, but right now there is nothing really unifying their efforts.
With commercial operating systems and software, you have direction from executives and such. That is sorely lacking in the open source world. You have pockets of creativity, but once again, nothing to join those creative elements.
Also, the whole distribution thing hurts Linux. Linux has x market share, but that market share has to be divided by y distributions. That will always hurt your numbers. It also causes confusion among normal people. Have you ever had to explain what and why distributions exist? It's not fun. For this very reason is why we have presidential primaries.
griffinhart
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,294
Ok, I'll give you the full vs upgrade, but that's not really that confusing for consumers. OEM's are really just the full version and isn't generally the way windows is purchased by the average consumer.
X86 vs X64 not really a different SKU. The "lesser" versions are the 32-bit copies and customers are given an option to get the 64-bit disks if they wish. But, to the average consumer there is no real difference. They will just install what comes in the package. Ultimate comes with both, but it is really marketed at more advanced users anyway.
The "N" version isn't a US thing. It's barely a EU things. It's available, but lets face it. Its not even a consideration. The only reason it exists is because MS was forced to release it.
QFT, Then problem with open OS like this is that every Joe on the street who knows how to get it working want to make their own distros.
Programme installation remains difficult, package managers between distros lack a common standard and by nature of the system it won't contain everything you might want. In many cases a MAKE/MAKE INSTALL is still needed and then you have to get what ever wierd library it needs.
The fact that you still need to use CLI's to get most system related things done is just not gonna fly for a comsumer OS
I've heard complaints about installation, but that's bullshit. Fedora/Centos is way easier to install than windows. Takes less time too. By the time you finish installing win2k3, I can have a centos 4.3 box fully installed AND updated.
I've heard complaints about software installation, but that's largely irrelevant too; yum works for 90% of the apps you need.
The thing holding back linux desktop adoption is vendor software support, plain and simple. Where I am now and where I was before would have switched in a heartbeat had it not been for the software we were using. I don't see vendors coding for linux anytime soon, so what the linux community needs is a good win32 emulation layer. *THAT* would spur desktop usage.
I've heard complaints about software installation, but that's largely irrelevant too; yum works for 90% of the apps you need.
The thing holding back linux desktop adoption is vendor software support, plain and simple. Where I am now and where I was before would have switched in a heartbeat had it not been for the software we were using. I don't see vendors coding for linux anytime soon, so what the linux community needs is a good win32 emulation layer. *THAT* would spur desktop usage.
As I Lay Dying
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 975
sorry but no you do not, you can do everything via gui, if you like......
I can right click on a system file and open it as root in gedit if I wished, granted its easier to open it via terminal, but the point still stands you can do almost anything via gui if you wanted, certains apps however you could not, unless it has a gui front end.
Wrong. The thing holding Linux back is that it is an open OS, as Hypernova has intimated. Too much variety for Joe Public.
There have been a few attempts to penetrate the consumer sector recently, with very cheap systems being sold in supermarkets with Linux and a few open source apps bundled to keep the price dowm. They've been a dismal failure, and probably done nothing other than hurt the chances of Linux pentrating further for popularity as a desktop OS.
Windows continues to rule the roost because it's dumbed down for end users and because there aren't different distros. Until the Linux world does the same it can't even hope to present as a contendor.
A text editer is not a GUI, I'm taking about something clickable with some words explaining what it does. I often service people who have trouble even typing stuff to set up their hotmail account. Most of your average Joe kinda people don't even know what /run/cmd does. I often see in gaming forums posts asking how to do a ping.
Read my post again, I didn't say that packet managers don't work, there is yet a simple .exe/.msi equivalent installer for linux which will work across at least 90% of all distros.
As I Lay Dying
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 975
sorry then please clarify what system related things you were referring to, because I interpreted as say; editing a system file, that requires root privileges, and all I have to do in nautilus is go to the file, right click and from the scripts menu open as root in gedit.
as opposed to gksudo gedit /boot/grub/menu.list via terminal.
I don't think so. Not in the corporate environment at least; Linux boxes can be locked down tighter than a windows box. In other words, less variety. Most people have touched a RH OS who have played with linux at all.
The failure of a few does not indicate an overall failure of the concept. Lowes runs something linuxy, last I checked. They seem completely content with it.
If the apps today ran on both linux and windows, we would see a much higher desktop linux usage, by mere virtue of the choice being available. Given the costs associated with linux vs windows, it would be a business no-brainer as to which to choose.
Interesting problem that Linux has.
1) A lot of the users DON'T want it to become mainstream.
2) No average users want to use it because there is no major software supported on Linux.
3) Major software won't be ported to Linux until there are enough users (this is the user-software paradox)
4) A lot of "under the hood" work is still required to do some basic things in Linux.
Another big problem is that there wouldn't be an easy way for Linux to make it on to computers being bought by the average consumer. Most OEMs won't touch Linux because of the costs to them, due to deals with Microsoft that say they have to make an entirely different production line, etc.
Another problem is that no ONE Linux distribution is standard and the fact that several different distributions may do things several different ways would completely overwhelm software support agencies and would cost them millions in training their support teams to deal with problems on several different distributions.
What needs to be done for Linux to suceed? In my opinion, Linux distributions need to come together and decide on a common goal, unite, and bring the best operating system to the masses. Until that happens, though, Linux is a hacker OS.
1) A lot of the users DON'T want it to become mainstream.
2) No average users want to use it because there is no major software supported on Linux.
3) Major software won't be ported to Linux until there are enough users (this is the user-software paradox)
4) A lot of "under the hood" work is still required to do some basic things in Linux.
Another big problem is that there wouldn't be an easy way for Linux to make it on to computers being bought by the average consumer. Most OEMs won't touch Linux because of the costs to them, due to deals with Microsoft that say they have to make an entirely different production line, etc.
Another problem is that no ONE Linux distribution is standard and the fact that several different distributions may do things several different ways would completely overwhelm software support agencies and would cost them millions in training their support teams to deal with problems on several different distributions.
What needs to be done for Linux to suceed? In my opinion, Linux distributions need to come together and decide on a common goal, unite, and bring the best operating system to the masses. Until that happens, though, Linux is a hacker OS.
As I Lay Dying
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 975
this is true, and while there is no standard, however rpms can be used in debian distros via alien, to make it into a deb, but I believe there is a standard installer project in the works......sorry I cannot remember the name but a group of folks are working on making an installer that installs on redhat, debian etc etc.
TheRapture
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 31, 2000
- Messages
- 6,885
No. Try teaching an average joe how to figure out dependencies, recompile a kernel, and telling him why the "Big Game Hunter" video game he bought at wal-mart for $10 won't work....
"linux is hard to install"
Err? you want to know hard to install... do L.F.S
But please I would much rather do an Ubuntu install (that just does it) rather then an XP install (which needs a couple of reboots and baby-sitting).
Linux is VERY easy to install
"get rid of the command line"
That would be the biggest mistake "Linux" could ever do. Even OSX (which is BSD-based) has access to the command line. Ubuntu and FS all have nice GUI tools for all the main administration of the system, but the command-line is still faster and more flexable AND common.
I just had to talk a mate through (via MSN) in how to get his spare HD to be his /home mount. Not knowing FC (and my VMWARE imaged FUBAR) I talked him through via the command-line and it just worked
"Better install of programs"
Err... emerge acrobat or even YUM or even APT-GET, and that is just the command-line. most distro's have a very good GUI-program to just pull the apps in automatically (and keep them uptodate). THen you get the likes of UT2004 which come with a linux install on-disk which "just works (TM)"
"Better install of drivers"
not the real issue, but again... you want nvidia driver "yum install kmod-nvidia" and it just does it.
The real issue is there is still some common hardware that does not have any (or good) linux drivers. THIS is a major issue for Linux to really hit the desktop
If your hardware is supported (and mine is 100%) it is soo simple (alot easier then with Windows) to install the drivers and use
"too many version of Linux"
what like... 2.6.20, or 2.6.19.5, or 2.4.27
or is the real question "too many distro's". While that is true (with the big names and then a million-and-one little ones) the general rule-of-thumb is Ubuntu,SuSe or FedoraCore (now thats only 3, how many does Vista have...).
Downto general use. If someone just browses the internet, plays some movies/mp3, sends emails then Linux is most definitly ready (dependent on the hardware).
If it is looking at gamers then while there are some very good and high-profile games avail/soon (UT2007,QuakeWars), generally there arnt.
if it is for some area's of professional work (electronic CAD) then again Linux is lacking (but then accells in others.. VHDL,Matlab...)
I don't think Linux is there just yet for a drop-in for the masses, but it is definitly there for those who know their way around their PC. The next release of FC is suppose to make install and admin really easy as well as hardware detection and utilisation as good as it can get
So really the only two stumbling blocks are
1) drives (for those few annoying companies *cough* BroadCom *cough*
2) high-end Applications (GIMP is very good, but Photoshop is needed, and Adobe does support linux alot)
is this year the year of the Linux desktop? yes like it was years ago. It is the year for linux for the masses? no, next year? probably not. But soon
Err? you want to know hard to install... do L.F.S
But please I would much rather do an Ubuntu install (that just does it) rather then an XP install (which needs a couple of reboots and baby-sitting).
Linux is VERY easy to install
"get rid of the command line"
That would be the biggest mistake "Linux" could ever do. Even OSX (which is BSD-based) has access to the command line. Ubuntu and FS all have nice GUI tools for all the main administration of the system, but the command-line is still faster and more flexable AND common.
I just had to talk a mate through (via MSN) in how to get his spare HD to be his /home mount. Not knowing FC (and my VMWARE imaged FUBAR) I talked him through via the command-line and it just worked
"Better install of programs"
Err... emerge acrobat or even YUM or even APT-GET, and that is just the command-line. most distro's have a very good GUI-program to just pull the apps in automatically (and keep them uptodate). THen you get the likes of UT2004 which come with a linux install on-disk which "just works (TM)"
"Better install of drivers"
not the real issue, but again... you want nvidia driver "yum install kmod-nvidia" and it just does it.
The real issue is there is still some common hardware that does not have any (or good) linux drivers. THIS is a major issue for Linux to really hit the desktop
If your hardware is supported (and mine is 100%) it is soo simple (alot easier then with Windows) to install the drivers and use
"too many version of Linux"
what like... 2.6.20, or 2.6.19.5, or 2.4.27
or is the real question "too many distro's". While that is true (with the big names and then a million-and-one little ones) the general rule-of-thumb is Ubuntu,SuSe or FedoraCore (now thats only 3, how many does Vista have...).
Downto general use. If someone just browses the internet, plays some movies/mp3, sends emails then Linux is most definitly ready (dependent on the hardware).
If it is looking at gamers then while there are some very good and high-profile games avail/soon (UT2007,QuakeWars), generally there arnt.
if it is for some area's of professional work (electronic CAD) then again Linux is lacking (but then accells in others.. VHDL,Matlab...)
I don't think Linux is there just yet for a drop-in for the masses, but it is definitly there for those who know their way around their PC. The next release of FC is suppose to make install and admin really easy as well as hardware detection and utilisation as good as it can get
So really the only two stumbling blocks are
1) drives (for those few annoying companies *cough* BroadCom *cough*
2) high-end Applications (GIMP is very good, but Photoshop is needed, and Adobe does support linux alot)
is this year the year of the Linux desktop? yes like it was years ago. It is the year for linux for the masses? no, next year? probably not. But soon
dependany checking is no longer a real problem. YUM,EMERGE,APT-GET all pull in deps for you without even you knowing there was any
recompiling kernel? short of wanting to streamline or customise (or for the shear hell of it) recompiling the kernel is NOT needed
ok ill give you the game, but 1 out of 3 is still two pieces of FUD
Stuff that does the editing for you ie a simple GUI front end. Having to edit a config file (sometimes with HEXEDIT) does not qualify. Like I said most of the non tech-savvy crowd would freak out the moment they open the files and give up immediatly.
What file are you editing with a hex editor? Are we even talking about the same thing?
I have no problem with someone developing a gui to monkey with .conf files, but don't change the format of those files. I still want to be able to ssh in and fix them remotely as needed.
So variety is a bad thing now? I thought choice was the whole point in a free market.
If we all lived in a monopolistic commune ruled by an evil dictator, then maybe in that world your view might be valid, but in this day and age choice is the difference between freedom, and slavery.
I'll not slave for anyone including MS.
The fact is that becouse of that viariety we have at least 3 different desktops to choose from, each with it's own strengths, and purpose. We have at ;least 100 different distro's each designed to fill a specific need. I need a router... Got it... I need a PVR... Got it... I need a Desktop... Got it....
Try doing that with windows, and tell me how good that lack of choice has treated you.
If we all lived in a monopolistic commune ruled by an evil dictator, then maybe in that world your view might be valid, but in this day and age choice is the difference between freedom, and slavery.
I'll not slave for anyone including MS.
The fact is that becouse of that viariety we have at least 3 different desktops to choose from, each with it's own strengths, and purpose. We have at ;least 100 different distro's each designed to fill a specific need. I need a router... Got it... I need a PVR... Got it... I need a Desktop... Got it....
Try doing that with windows, and tell me how good that lack of choice has treated you.
From my perspective, exe/msis don't work all that well either. I have 200+ systems to install software on, and for a majority of those apps I have to physically go to the machine and install it. Hell, at least linux HAS a package manager, windows does not ( built in. Addon, in the form of zenworks, active directory, or SMS ).
The home market is all well and good, but from a corporate perspective linux is actually easier to maintain and use than windows.
Theres only two real things stopping Linux from being popular on the desktop.
1. Driver support. Until people can go to walmart and know that Linux will see the chepo-brand device they just bought, Linux will be scary for home users.
2. Manufacturers install the OS. Both Windows and Linux have many terrific qualities that could attract people who care about the qualities that an OS has, but most people simply don't know of care about such things. Linux is easy to install, so barring driver support there is nothing stopping anyone from installing it, except that normal people don't install the OS. Techies, that visit sites like this install operating systems, while regular people either call somebody else to do it for them, or they just never change it at all. Most people will never install anything other than what their system comes with, and when they buy a new PC they will keep whatever it comes with too, on and on and on like so.
1. Driver support. Until people can go to walmart and know that Linux will see the chepo-brand device they just bought, Linux will be scary for home users.
2. Manufacturers install the OS. Both Windows and Linux have many terrific qualities that could attract people who care about the qualities that an OS has, but most people simply don't know of care about such things. Linux is easy to install, so barring driver support there is nothing stopping anyone from installing it, except that normal people don't install the OS. Techies, that visit sites like this install operating systems, while regular people either call somebody else to do it for them, or they just never change it at all. Most people will never install anything other than what their system comes with, and when they buy a new PC they will keep whatever it comes with too, on and on and on like so.
Like what exactly?
GNOME comes with some admin tools which gives you some nice point n click to configure the GRUB file (no need to go vim /boot/grub/grub.conf and then switch between modes)
GNOME comes with a nice way to manage printers (so no need to edit /etc/cups.conf)
GNOME comes with a nice way to manage users (so you can add new users, add them to groups all via the mouse)
There are some nice WiFi management tools (like NetworkManager) which means you don't need to go anyway near a wpa_supplicant.conf file at all
Likewise the likes of FC and Ubuntu some with their own set of GUI-management tools (with FC having one to define the method of login authentication which choices from kerberos...)
Modern Linux desktop's have a whole host of GUI-administrative programs that make configuring the system easier, BUT you still have the option of dropping to the command line, starting vim on ssh.conf and just going /X11Forwarding if you then decide you want to tunnel and X-session over ssh
- Status