And even if drivers do exist, they may not include the extra software that comes bundled with drivers on Windows. The most obvious example is NVIDIA GeForce Experience suite.

This goes in the pro column if you ask me. I would pay extra for a printer that just has vanilla drivers and no software suite.

Instead, it’s about the irretrievable, sunken costs associated with a loss of incompatible software and hardware that the person would no longer be able to use after switching to Linux.

… When windows has made its latest release incompatible with most existing hardware out there because of some arbitrary requirements. I have not seen any major hardware compatibility issues with Linux in quite a few years now. It is not common at all for some hardware to not work. In less then about a year Windows in going to make a huge amount of existing hardware unusable for supported versions of windows. That alone will help with Linuxs market share.

Most arguments in this article are overblown out very outdated. Software compatibility is a issue, but much less then it used to be. Big companies like Adobe and Microsoft which refuse to support Linux are also starting to alienate their user base making the cost of switching more and more apprising all the while the linux friendly alternatives are growing in popularity. And as I said above hardware is not a big issue these days and about to be a big issue for Windows systems.

It does touch berfily on the main point sa to why linux os not very popular ATM:

Most people don’t even know what Linux is because they’ve never seen it pre-installed on a laptop in a store. But I digress.

That is the problem, defaults. Most people don’t care or want to change their OS and most people have hardware and workloads that are easily compatible to Linux. It is really only a minority of people that require things that Windows supports better - sadly those are also the types of people more willing to break from the default OS.

The year of the Linux desktop won’t come until we, the Linux community, find a way to balance the cost of switching with the future benefits of daily driving Linux from the perspective of an average user. Until then, Linux will remain more like a niche thing, made by enthusiasts for enthusiasts.

No it wont. The normal user will only switch when they are forced to by their current system stopping working or new hardware comes with Linux by default. The average user is your aunt how uses their computer to log into facebook or look up recipes online. A professional that requires adobe suite is not an average user and only makes up a tiny fraction of the overall userbase. It would be nice to support their workloads, but even if adobe was fully supported on Linux that would still only be a fraction more users that would be willing to move. For the average user it is the defaults that their system comes with that makes the biggest difference.

However, it’s not ready to dethrone Windows

Is this how we define “the year or the Linux desktop”? The year when the market share is larger than Windows? That’s setting the bar a bit high, no?

For me, the year or the Linux desktop was 2007 or so. That’s when I started using it instead of Windows. 🤷‍♂️

You’ve heard the “prophecy”: next year is going to be the year of the Linux desktop, right?

Yes, every year since 1997

Let’s say there are 2 billion desktop computers in the world and that Linux is installed on 3% of them.

That is 60 million Linux desktop users.

That is more than enough to sustain a vibrant ecosystem. Linux does not really need more market share to keep being an excellent option.

What’s your opinion on the european movement?

Just asking because you don’t mention it

These are probably the biggest reasons, but I think even after literally decades of development the actual desktop is still far behind Windows XP in many respects.

For example today I wanted to add a “start menu” shortcut to a program I had downloaded. The most popular answer is to *manually create a .desktop file and copy it to some obscure dot directory! Hilarious. Even Windows 3.1 had a built-in GUI for this.

Ok so there is a GUI to do it, but it isn’t actually integrated into desktops and isn’t installed by default. You have to install it separately.

It’s the same for things like WiFi settings! There are some settings in GNOME but most are hidden in the third party nm-connection-editor (from memory) and of course GNOME doesn’t have an “advanced settings” button to open that.

There are so many of these paper cuts I think Linux would be quite a frustrating experience for many people even if if had Windows-level hardware support.

I also can’t see this changing any time soon. Not that many Linux devs actually care about this sort of thing and many of them don’t even understand that it is a problem in the first place. Cue replies.

Hardware support really sucks, as many hardware manufacturers only care about supporting M$ Windows.

There’s a way to force them to provide drivers for Linux, let’s say the trade commission in any country forces all devices to have drivers for Linux.

I think if you wiped everyone’s prior experience and knowledge and all that stuff, like just wiped the slate clean and presented all the OSes for what they are and let everyone choose which on they got to use, things would land pretty much where they are right now. Linux is generally way easier than it was 10 years ago but it’s still far too tricky for most normal users. If it’s too difficult for them to use then they effectively don’t have a computer and it’s useless to them. Linux may be free but after dropping £1000+ on a laptop people don’t mind so much paying an extra £70 for the software.

The two most important things to normal people are good looks and ease of use and Linux comes in last in both of those races.

Linux isn’t for normal people, it’s made by nerds for nerds.