Operating systems have a really high degree of lock-in. Such that while you -can- change OS, there's simply no incentive to do so.
That's why you're still running the same OS you always have. [1]
You accumulate software yes, but you also accumulate habits and knowledge. Changing OS means discarding all the accumulated knowledge, which 0% of "normal users" want to do.
Throw in the change in software, ending up with at least some proportion of worse software, and the desire to change is 0.
[1] where "you" applies to a rounding error away from 100%
Hmm I don't find this true at all for really any of the systems.
If you stick to windows xp or roll your own Linux distros maybe this is true, but I barely know how to use any windows box. Bunch of black registry magic and constantly changing UI nonsense, literally Google and sometimes msdn are how I survive there.
Ubuntu/Fedora all go through fits of hipness and constantly change how things are done. Config files one day, services and runtime the next. UIs are really non-standard and always breaking something or other.
OSX...first time I used it I was learning Unix systems. I went back to it and it was an unholy mess of gotchas.
Android is still hurtling through versions every year and I have no idea what "current" phone looks like, I probably hate it.
When I have been unfortunate enough to use iOS it was like being made Legos trying to build other Legos. It was a right pain.
There are some common design patterns and the like but that tends to be in spite of the OS, not because of it.
The change from say one version of Windows to the next is tiny, and happens every 5 years or so.
Changing from one OS to another is orders of magnitude more complex. As you point out above jumping between them is painful.
Your job may require you to do that, but you're a tiny sliver of the work-force, never mind everyone else. My book-keeper has never encountered the Windows Registry.
You're thinking of the OS as an actual bit of software you interact with. For 99.99% of users it's invisible. They just want printing to happen when they press the print button.
> The change from say one version of Windows to the next is tiny
Huh?! That's bullshit. I had recently tried to fix something on family's PC that upgraded itself to Win11 and had absolutely no clue how to navigate all the new settings panels even though I use 10 near daily.
"The change from say one version of Windows to the next is tiny, and happens every 5 years or so."
This is simply not true - the OS can and does change with monthly patches. Windows and Linux are both worse than Android or iOS/OSX in this regards I find, but that's to due with vendor preference not an underlying guarantee.
A lot of people are locked-in Windows, but as Microsoft more and more ruins the OS by pushing advertisement, telemetry, slow cloud services, new versions of apps optimized for those who don't know how to use a computer, rather than experts - there will be plenty of users switching to Linux.
Most users are not even aware of telemetry. Those who find the cloud services slow can just stop using them.
The advertising seems to be local to the US because I've never seen it, but I expect users will ignore it just like they ignore it on TV, Google, Facebook, Twitter, on every roadside, at every mall and do on. Frankly advertising is everywhere, avoiding it doesn't seem to be a priority.
I think you summed it up. Computer Experts may want to switch to Linux, and likely already have. My mom, who is 40 years a novice, cares less about any of what you listed. Her skill set is small, and her interest in changing is miles below 0.
And there are 97% of the world like her and, 3% like you ;)
>> Those who find the cloud services slow can just stop using them.
Microsoft has made sure users can't stop using cloud services, unless they spend a ton of effort every time a new update that re-enables them is released.
E.g. try to disable the web search in the Windows start menu.
>> And there are 97% of the world like her and, 3% like you ;)
If the 3% expert users switch away from Windows it will be the beginning of the end for Windows.
WSL being a recent counter factor, as much as I don't enjoy Windows it got a lot more bearable for me since I can manage it through a Debian installation. Filesystem access, Windows program execution and running cmd.exe/powershell commands without having to open either of them removes some of the pain
Heavily doubt that those would make people switch. Maaaybe, if their social circle already uses Linux.
However, make the next Minecraft, Fortnite or Roblox work only (or considerably better) on Linux desktop[], and you will suddenly gain a lot more new users. Some of whom will stick around, since all their other apps work the same in the browser.
[] Whatever that term means, even the article makes a distinction between that and Chrome OS.
It made me switch, anyway, recently - specifically another one of those "Oh, let's finish setting up your computer" (i.e., try to trick you into trying Edge again, probably, or set up a "Microsoft" account) with my only options being "Remind me later" or "OK" was the straw that broke the camel's back.
That said, I'm far from your typical desktop user. I'm vaguely Linux sysadmin adjacent, and I ran Linux as my primary OS for many years - until one day I noticed I was mostly booted into Windows for gaming and decided to reclaim that SSD space.
Gaming on Linux has come... leaps and bounds. It's actually extraordinary. Still many sharp edges, but the Steam Deck might in fact be the first spark of a revolution here. We'll see, I guess.
Is this where I'm supposed to say Wine Is Not an Emulator? ;-)
Jokes aside, totally right, and unfortunately, in my experience it's often a better experience to run the Windows port under Wine than it is to use the native version. e.g. the native version of Tyranny is just a black box for me, but the Wine version works pretty flawlessly.
I think userspace is just too unstable, and game companies probably don't want a forever-ongoing maintenance cost just to keep their old games running.
>However, make the next Minecraft, Fortnite or Roblox work only (or considerably better) on Linux desktop
And lose lots of money in that process. :)
And what Linux OS should you target? Ubuntu, Fedora, Linux Mint, Arch, Android? Target KDE or Gnome? Or maybe XFCE? X Windows or Wayland? Use ALSA, Pipewire or Pulse Audio? Bionic or glibc?
I imagined anyone making the next hugely popular game in the same category as those that I mentioned is not going to put much money in developing it, just time.
And doing so, they'd likely just target the particular Linux system they happen to have or like---whether Arch, or Android, or even Alpine. It might well work on other Linux systems (or even non-Linux), or it might not.
Maybe I'm off base here, but that's what I see (even casual) gamers do, especially younger ones: go to great lengths to get the game they want, to run. If that system which runs the game also supports their other hobbies, school or work, then that's what they will use.
Steam runs games inside of a container to provide a consistent environment for the game. It largely ignores the OS and only uses the kernel as a result. Linux distros have tons of differences that make it otherwise untenable to target. You need an army of package maintainers to maintain per distro packages and sort out differences which seems to work for oss, but doesn't for commercial closed source software.
This is actually a great way of running stuff in "foreign" distros where you can't guarantee the presence or absence of libraries.
For example DaVinci Resolve is packaged for (now quite old) CentOS but runs just fine installed on Ubuntu, with absolutely no problems at all. The only thing that might catch out the unwary is that CentOS packages a couple of libraries as default which Ubuntu doesn't but if you're savvy enough to edit video you're savvy enough to catch this.
You can also run Resolve in a Docker container so it "sees" a CentOS environment no matter what, and it's transparent across any other distro. There's no real need to do this, although it makes running more than one version easy.
A lot of people are also locked-in linux if they have to use e.g. docker or kubernetes, not to mention FOSS hooked to systemd or other linux-specific technologies. Say goodbye to compatibility and portability to other systems.
How did you go from "a lot of people will switch" to "the year of Linux on desktop"?
Microsoft is making a lot of changes that will annoy the expert users. Stuff like a Settings app that has a single screen - e.g. one makes changes to his network setup, decides to increase the brightness of the screen - the Settings app navigates from network to screen and the user progress with network is lost.
> Changing OS means discarding all the accumulated knowledge, which 0% of "normal users" want to do.
More and more upgrading the OS means discarding a large amount of accumulated knowledge as well, which normal users don't want to do, but don't have much of a choice.
> You accumulate software yes, but you also accumulate habits and knowledge. Changing OS means discarding all the accumulated knowledge, which 0% of "normal users" want to do.
I only ever hear Linux users make this argument. Mac users are confident enough in MacOS UX that they know it’s not a significant barrier to transition. The same is not true of Linux. So many solutions to problems require opening the CLI, and that’s just an automatic fail for the vast majority of consumers.
Honestly, I would like Linux fans to just accept Linux for what it is: an amazing kernel with incredible GUIs built by and for developers. App developers just do not care about (or do not have the resources for) making simple and intuitive software. Valve is a welcome and notable exception with the Steam Deck. Linus Torvalds explains it perfectly: https://youtu.be/Pzl1B7nB9Kc
> Mac users are confident enough in MacOS UX that they know it’s not a significant barrier to transition
I bought my mother a Macbook during the Snow Leopard era and we sold it after 2 months because she could absolutely not get used to the UI, since she had been using Windows since basically forever.
This is exactly my point, and indeed the point of the parent. If you know Windows use Windows. If you know Mac, use Mac.
There is no reason to make your mom (or my mom) switch.
And while MacOS may be intuitive, its less intuitive if you come from something else. I used one for a bit and found everything "backwards". One version of Mac to another or one version of Windows to another is trivial compared to changing from one to the other.
Obviously the Linux CLI is waaay beyond most average people. So it's a non starter anyway.
That's why you're still running the same OS you always have. [1] You accumulate software yes, but you also accumulate habits and knowledge. Changing OS means discarding all the accumulated knowledge, which 0% of "normal users" want to do.
Throw in the change in software, ending up with at least some proportion of worse software, and the desire to change is 0.
[1] where "you" applies to a rounding error away from 100%