Why would you want a majority of people using the same distribution? It’s much better if users are distributed relatively equally among a hand full of distributions. More options with good developers and community support is better. In case something bad happens to one, it’s no problem switching to the next one over. Look at examples from the past: Ubuntu, CentOS
Why would you want a majority of people using the same distribution?
I don’t, necessarily. I just think it’s the only way we will ever see widespread adoption of Linux on desktops. But, maybe I’m wrong. Honestly, I hope I am. I hope through changes in the culture and more education, people will make the switch. But, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t skeptical.
People need to: (1) have capacity, like a single mother with 3 kids and commuting to work 3 jobs isn’t going to switch even if it took less than a day, and (2) they need to see the value of doing so first. Lowering the entry barrier will help IMMENSELY, and then after that people are willing to put up with some slight amounts of effort so long as they know in advance it will be worthwhile.
Unfortunately a non-technical mainstream normie isn’t going to know how to check their hardware first, and barely knows what software they themselves use (including the variety of plug-ins) on a daily basis, or how to know which ones they will have to give up using, and seek alternatives for.
If such alternatives exist. Like, on a mobile device (including laptops, or an Android phone/tablet), nobody has ever managed to tell me an actually usable web browser that doesn’t burn up my battery in the background all day long like Firefox does - Firefox is an absolutely horrid shit app, which just so happens to be better than Chrome… barely.
And what program/app is more crucial in this modern era than a web browser? So when people see the state that the CEO of Firefox has put that FOSS program into, and the lack of anyone else (e.g. LibreWolf) making a better app - which again must be usable by non-technical mainstream normie users - then they nope right out and never bother to reconsider.
Note that the market share of people using desktops vs. a laptop or mobile where battery concerns are absolutely critical is dropping, see e.g. this article.
That issue wouldn’t matter to most people. People want what works. For now, Windows works for them. They wouldn’t care about community contributions, FOSS, and decentralization. If you want widespread Linux adoption, you need a robust. easy to use, and beginner friendly OS. Of course there are options like Mint and Zorin, but they still can’t quite do everything Windows does.
I’m sure you’re right, but the casual user hasn’t got a clue about any of that. They just want to turn their PC on and have it do what they expect it to do. The moment you start telling them about the advantages of one version over another you’ve lost them.
Why would you want a majority of people using the same distribution? It’s much better if users are distributed relatively equally among a hand full of distributions. More options with good developers and community support is better. In case something bad happens to one, it’s no problem switching to the next one over. Look at examples from the past: Ubuntu, CentOS
I don’t, necessarily. I just think it’s the only way we will ever see widespread adoption of Linux on desktops. But, maybe I’m wrong. Honestly, I hope I am. I hope through changes in the culture and more education, people will make the switch. But, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t skeptical.
People need to: (1) have capacity, like a single mother with 3 kids and commuting to work 3 jobs isn’t going to switch even if it took less than a day, and (2) they need to see the value of doing so first. Lowering the entry barrier will help IMMENSELY, and then after that people are willing to put up with some slight amounts of effort so long as they know in advance it will be worthwhile.
Unfortunately a non-technical mainstream normie isn’t going to know how to check their hardware first, and barely knows what software they themselves use (including the variety of plug-ins) on a daily basis, or how to know which ones they will have to give up using, and seek alternatives for.
If such alternatives exist. Like, on a mobile device (including laptops, or an Android phone/tablet), nobody has ever managed to tell me an actually usable web browser that doesn’t burn up my battery in the background all day long like Firefox does - Firefox is an absolutely horrid shit app, which just so happens to be better than Chrome… barely.
And what program/app is more crucial in this modern era than a web browser? So when people see the state that the CEO of Firefox has put that FOSS program into, and the lack of anyone else (e.g. LibreWolf) making a better app - which again must be usable by non-technical mainstream normie users - then they nope right out and never bother to reconsider.
Note that the market share of people using desktops vs. a laptop or mobile where battery concerns are absolutely critical is dropping, see e.g. this article.
That issue wouldn’t matter to most people. People want what works. For now, Windows works for them. They wouldn’t care about community contributions, FOSS, and decentralization. If you want widespread Linux adoption, you need a robust. easy to use, and beginner friendly OS. Of course there are options like Mint and Zorin, but they still can’t quite do everything Windows does.
I’m sure you’re right, but the casual user hasn’t got a clue about any of that. They just want to turn their PC on and have it do what they expect it to do. The moment you start telling them about the advantages of one version over another you’ve lost them.