I've used Linux for years. I've even used Linux on the first Macs I ever had. In the end, I found it just cost me too much time, especially if I wanted to keep it running on the hardware of my choice, which will most likely remain Apple. And I'm not compromising my hardware choice, as long as other manufacturers can't be bothered to invest as much in excellent product design.
Also, having so much freedom to choose and configure is not always productive, and I really don't like the defaults most distro's come with. This is where the difference between OSX and Linux desktops becomes painfully clear.
I'll consider switching back if OSX becomes too restrictive or the Linux desktop eco-system (including hardware) dramatically improves.
My configuration for Linux is so much of a productivity boost to me that I'm planning to make my next laptop a Thinkpad, just to avoid the hardware issues.
OS X just held me back. It was locking up at 20% CPU and 40% RAM usage, and I could never figure it out. Linux doesn't do that (especially since I threw a bunch of swap space on, now it's incredibly stable)
As for defaults, I find it's faster in the short term to start with defaults and work from there, but it'll just come back and bite you that you're using somebody else's workflow. I start from scratch (for the most part) with Arch, and build my workflow on top.
I've wasted probably two weeks to get my workflow configured perfectly, but now I can spit out code at such a rate that I find myself doing more projects than ever before.
I agree. Id say the Linux desktop will probably never drastically improve because of this massive NIH-syndrome.
So much development resources go into maintaining dozens of forks of popular Desktop enviroments (Unity, Gnome3, Mate, Cinnamon, GnomeShell, KDE, XFCE etc) that its not even funny anymore. Choice isnt always good.
The sheer flexibility and number of choices for each and every part of the linux desktop world makes the whole experience chaotic, inconsistent, buggy and complex to setup and maintain. And as thats the DNA of Linux and Open-Source, it probably wont change. And while awesome, that DNA makes it nearly impossible to have a Linux Desktop experience that will ever rival the closed ones in terms of day-to-day usability.
> The sheer flexibility and number of choices for each and every part of the linux desktop world makes the whole experience chaotic, inconsistent, buggy and complex to setup and maintain.
I think that's what vendors like ubuntu should be for. They should focus on stability and planning.
Instead they just keep doing their own thing for a audience that might very well not exist.
Exactly. Ubuntu started out to be the mainstream distro that just makes the linux desktop experience smooth and free of worries, but instead they now build just another desktop experience on their own.
Even for Ubuntu you have Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Mint and-i-dont-know-what else...thats just the wrong approach imo.
That's because people don't figure out that every Linux can run every WM or desktop environment anyway. So they need a seperate distribution just to switch from Unity to KDE...
I think if you're a very basic user, you can get a consistent experience just because you can use the included desktop in Ubuntu or some other distro and not run into many problems. However, your experience will still be inferior to that of OSX since Apple has put more efforts into applications like Mail, iPhoto and iTunes.
If you're an advanced user (as all of the readers here would probaby be), you'll quickly end up in the situation you describe.
Also, having so much freedom to choose and configure is not always productive, and I really don't like the defaults most distro's come with. This is where the difference between OSX and Linux desktops becomes painfully clear.
I'll consider switching back if OSX becomes too restrictive or the Linux desktop eco-system (including hardware) dramatically improves.