The idea that you can take the current state of modern desktop Linux as a consumer OS for the masses* is still just as crazy in 2018 as it always has been in years past.
I’m old enough to have seen a generation of Linux reviews proclaiming “this is the one!!” that can be the viable desktop OS for your family’s computers, and it never happens (the marketshare figures speak for themselves).
A consumer OS simply cannot ever require the average user to open a terminal window to fix, configure or install something, _ever_, to be a valid third choice for almost everyone who doesn’t have a Hacker News account. Windows and MacOS achieve this for the most part.
Google almost any kind of technical issue for, say Ubuntu, someone will suggest typing something in a terminal window that the average user doesn’t understand at all almost immediately.
* I will accept of course that ChromeOS is a notable exception, but this works radically differently for most users compared to most Linux distros.
I'm talking about technical people. Why would I care about popularity of Linux if it works for me and may be even better than Windows. It's not a consumer OS for the masses, that's a primary reason of its low popularity, that's correct. I don't agree that part about terminal, I mean, editing registry in Windows is not easier. It's more about investing huge resources into polish and testing, so for most people there are no technical issues which would require complex repairs.
Who cares? Way more developers and users devote time to improving the Linux experience than Windows or Mac. That's the only way in which popularity really matters. And it shows - when I switch to Windows, my Laptop fans start up and everything feels as slow as a slug. Because at this point, Windows is just bad software - and that's because Microsoft has recognized that the Desktop/PC thing is a declining market - and have reallocated resources accordingly.
I care - if you want a vibrant third party software ecosystem it helps if there’s a reasonable sized install base, especially when comparing to an install base that is often near enough a rounding error. This means my development OS has to find a reasonable audience beyond people like me. Vibrant doesn’t just mean “free” or open source either. For commercial software, there’s significantly less economic incentive to ship Linux support. It’s sadly a similar story with respect to hardware/peripheral support from time to time as well.
It’s nice when you can run things such as the Adobe suite without recourse to emulation/wine etc. I don’t just use my desktop OS for work.
I do see your point - I keep my big computer on windows for this reason, and for hardware support. However, I think the picture is more complicated than windows having a 'vibrant' ecosystem, and linux having no such thing.
My experience is that 90's-era flagship programs, like Adobe suite, Microsoft Office, and so on, generally don't have Linux support. However, for anything past that, Linux is simply way better. If you want something like a nice calendar app, a good music player, or a good calculator, or whatever, linux is way ahead.
Android isn't a desktop operating system and mobile device hardware continues to be a huge mess.
That doesn't stop you from buying a PC from Dell or building one from parts and installing Debian/Ubuntu/Mint/whatever-you-want on it. The percentage of other people who do that is irrelevant because the absolute number is still millions of people, which is more than enough to sustain a community and produce a competitive user experience.
I have an old computer with Windows on it and would turn it on once in a blue moon for the occasional thing that required Windows. It has been years since I've had to use it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_sys...