This is an interesting opinion piece that I thought our community would be interested.
I agree with the author completely. The most interesting thing about this article is the comments at the end. This specific comment made me think!
Re: functionality
You missed my point but made it with your discussion, which is correct: it IS about functionality. Thatās WHY people care about what applications they can run versus what OS is doing it. At least for the most part: for example, when people choose MacOS they then consider what applications they will / can be using and then decide that their choice of hardware / OS-pairing is acceptable.
Those people using Chromebooks and Google online services are not caring about using Microsoftās apps.
Exactly. A large majority of Microsoftās Office users areā¦surprisinglyā¦office workers. Who knew?? Mom and Pop end users donāt have MS Office on their radar when they pick their new computer, āBut honey, will it run Office?ā isnāt a common discussion. In the U.S., āWill it run TurboTax?ā is a much more common concern, never mind āBut how does it do when Iām on the internet?ā, āWill Joe Jr. be able to do his homework?ā, āWill it run my games?ā, and of course cost.
Business users are the main user of Office, and switching to Linux isnāt even on the radar because of a combination of lost productivity during the switch, retraining concerns, and support questions.
Iām terribly, terribly sorry for your Linux fanaticism, but 3% of the desktop market after DECADES of trying PROVES my point. You people keep pushing and pushing and pushing the OS as if itās the savior for the average person, yet 3% market is proof that THEY DONāT CARE. They care about functionality, compatibility and support, plus a few other topics, and Linux simply canāt do that for Joe Average, no matter how much youāve promised that (yet failed to deliver) for decades.
A constant stream of new kernels to follow and decide if you want / need to update to; an overwhelming choice of distros to figure out based upon what functions & hardware support it provides; a learning curve that only directs you to user forum boards in hopes of finding a friendly helping hand; applications that not only have unfamiliar user paradigms but less functionality and questionable compatibility with what most other people are usingā¦
Unix-based users JUST DONāT GET IT. Unix was hyped for the desktopā¦it failed (Appleās adoption of BSD, and their taming of it for the Average Joe, aside). Linux fails because of the same ARROGANCE that users want the āsuperiorityā of Unix / Linus OS, but then have to sacrifice on end-user application functionality and friendliness. Get a grip, they wonāt make that compromise - and HAVENāT, for DECADES - but nothing changes with the Linux crowd. Theyāre wrong, youāre right, but then you wonder how your Pet Baby never gets the desktop respect you think it deserves, because āUnix!ā. Average Joe ALREADY has a choice for Unix-system stability - itās called MacOS - and people attuned to that go there, with far more support, far more polish, and a joyous user learning curve and end-user experience. Linux, as it stands, doesnāt stand a chance against that - that can change, but hasnāt, for decades.