I really find Linux useless for most things

[ihrsetrdr]

Just because Microsoft is commercially dominant and has used it's power to dissuade development of software such as graphics drivers(for example) dosn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that a user cannot do without that MS Windows.

If a person's life revolves around playing games, then yes, Microsoft is your master. For any other computer activity, Linux mets or exceeds Windows in ease and performance.

By the way, benchmarking software developed for Windows is obviously irrelevant when it comes to benchmarking in Linux.

There is however, plenty of benchmarking applications for the Linux platform.

 

[Alaric]

Being commercially dominant creates certain realities that are hard to ignore, though. Again, if you have to use the average computer at work you need to know Windows, same with the average (huge majority) home PC. If computers are part of your life, knowing how to navigate Windows is a must. Not all "Linux versions" of software work on all, or even most, Linux distros. They're all over the map. And no guarantee that your app or game that's been ported to Red Hat or Ubuntu is going to perform as well as the tried and true Windows version.

Gaming is a nice bonus to owning a PC. Your life doesn't have to revolve around games to want to take advantage of the superior platform there. OCF is a niche forum in a niche tech community, and likely has a much greater percentage of "power users" than the overall PC community, and full time Linux users are a small percentage of that. I think usage numbers make the point. Windows does everything I need fast enough, on a stable enough platform, for me. If Linux offers an advantage to someone's needs, then it's the better platform in that case. There just aren't a lot of those cases out there. I think the point of the OP was the average user doesn't have much use or need for Linux. I haven't seen anything that disputes that yet. To get me close to the usefulness of Windows, Linux needs to overcome the issues spelled out by orion456.

Linux is also so fragmented with incompatible distros that the market would have a hard time addressing so many versions of Linux. Windows and MAC provide support for developers to learn as the platform grows. Linux is a wild west and very hard to service. Unless Linux consolidates around one distro, I don't see many developers being interested.

While that is being slowly addressed, Linux is still way behind the curve relative to Windows. Yes, Windows dominance has the effect of keeping Linux in the shadows. But Windows dominance exists in large part because it works. Linux is a very long way from that kind of universal usefulness.

 

[ihrsetrdr]

But Windows dominance exists in large part because it works. Linux is a very long way from that kind of universal usefulness.

If this statement is meant to suggest that there is some kind of "better quality" that Windows possesses, I'd just have to question that, and point to the lengthy threads in the Windows forum section, bemoaning all the Windows 10 features that users are trying to eliminate or overcome.

One of the more amusing: "Cortana, you're fired!"

Actually, more sad than amusing, having paid for an operating systems whose features are repulsive, or contrary to the user's wishes.

 

[Alaric]

I am 100% on board with your assessment of Windows 10, but I'm in the minority there, too. Windows 7 covers everything for me. But, considering your (quite valid) point, maybe M$ is creating the "window" Linux needs to go more mainstream? (No pun intended, but I'll take it). Windows 10 does make a lot of people (even here) happy. I don't get that either. LOL. The original thread title was "Cortana must die!", but certain sensibilities were apparently not up to the task of an OS assassination thread.

 

[ihrsetrdr]

I thought the title originally was "Cortana must die!",, but didn't know what happened.

Just for the record, I'm not at all a "Windows hater", I found Windows 7 to be a decent OS, although I no longer really use my W7 install.

Linux is not in competition with other operating systems pe se, although Canonical and Redhat might want to sell their Enterprise software to a wider market.

Except: Android( a Linux based Development) is king on the mobile platform, with a large portion of the global market.

I am waiting for a 'pure' Linux phone, as I tire of being tied in with all kinds of Google properties. Librem 5 Linux phone should be available in Q1 2019.

 

[Alaric]

I hear ya' on Google. Everything bad about Windows 10 was pioneered by Google. I'm looking to install Phoenix OS (Android 7.1) just to see what it's like. I wouldn't mind an alternative to Windows, I just don't see one on the horizon any time soon.

 

[caddi daddi]

we use autodesk as workstation only, no web surfing or anything else and that system is flawless.
there in nothing in windoze we can't do in linux, other than get people up to speed using it.
I I get one of my people to an ubuntu machine they have a hard time, it looks different, if I get them on a zorin os machine they relax a bit and have an easier time, it looks more what they are used to and they are a little more comfy using it.

 

[Alaric]

there in nothing in windoze we can't do in linux, other than get people up to speed using it.

get people up to speed using it.

You're almost there...... The problem is pretty much spelled out. People generally have to know Winders. Linux is an option. An option that requires yet more effort.

]there in nothing in linux we can't do in windoze

There, I fixed that for you. LOL

 

[Stratus_ss]

Again, if you have to use the average computer at work you need to know Windows, same with the average (huge majority) home PC. .

This is pure FUD on the simple basis that I guarantee that anyone who uses any computer can navigate windows. This average user of whom you speak doesn't know windows from a hole in the ground. What they know is click on the start button and then they locate the icon they wish and click on it.

My 5 year old does not have a Windows computer at home, and yet he can get on any computer and launch minecraft if the icon is present. This average user, does not open the control panel, reg edit, power shell or anything else. What they do is click on icons, sometimes they download things from the internet by clicking on them, and then double clicking the resulting binary. All of which take no knowledge.

What they do do is get used to the layout of a computer. If the layout changes they feel apprehensive about something new, as was referenced earlier, this type of user responds very well to linuxes which are skinned like an interface they are used to (Zorin for Windows; Elementary for OSX)

Conflating UI elements to knowing an OS is disingenuous and incorrect

 

[wagex]

i mean, for the average user.. if all the software they need has an icon yeah its super simple, ive tried installing software that isnt just a apt-get install or yum and holy heck it is a royal pain in the tushy most of the time, no way a normal user is going to be able to set it up, but once its setup i agree yeah its pretty easy to use and great, and on the bright side they arent going to be able to install anything else on it to bork anything.

the average user just browses the web and checks email.. so yeah linux is great, some of the alternatives like for excel, we use the vb.net backend for a bunch of macros in excel which i dont believe is doable in the linux alternative? that and a bunch of proprietary software we have to use for scanning and auditing and whatnot. then you get compatibility issues when people you are collaborating with are using the microsoft version of excel vs apache's alternative. i say that... were using office 2003 still hahaha we always have to convert, but excel does it itself.

i only manage a site with like 10 computers so i dont know how it would scale but the hassle of having to tweak linux for each user since they have no experience in linux would be hellish in itself, hell they been using windows for 20 years and still need help with some of the most mundane tasks.

 

[Archer0915]

I can make many application work with linux but they are not native. I have a few CNC machines that have major issues where the software is concerned. Simply put, I am not going around my butthole to get to my elbow! Yes I can and I have but I honestly believe the issue here is MS.

I run quite a few programs that have no native Linux support. I am sorry but that means praying WINE will work and the drivers (think 3D models and rendering) can keep up. Sorry but I have always liked Linux better but facts are facts and time is money.

 

[Alaric]

This is pure FUD on the simple basis that I guarantee that anyone who uses any computer can navigate windows. This average user of whom you speak doesn't know windows from a hole in the ground. What they know is click on the start button and then they locate the icon they wish and click on it.

My 5 year old does not have a Windows computer at home, and yet he can get on any computer and launch minecraft if the icon is present. This average user, does not open the control panel, reg edit, power shell or anything else. What they do is click on icons, sometimes they download things from the internet by clicking on them, and then double clicking the resulting binary. All of which take no knowledge.

What they do do is get used to the layout of a computer. If the layout changes they feel apprehensive about something new, as was referenced earlier, this type of user responds very well to linuxes which are skinned like an interface they are used to (Zorin for Windows; Elementary for OSX)

Conflating UI elements to knowing an OS is disingenuous and incorrect

Seriously? A 5 year old playing Minecraft is the average workplace user? This is completely off the rails. Enjoy, folks.

 

[Stratus_ss]

Seriously? A 5 year old playing Minecraft is the average workplace user? This is completely off the rails. Enjoy, folks.

I believe you also said

same with the average (huge majority) home PC

In which case my statement seems valid and your response is a bit asinine. If I removed the statement about 5 year old the principle holds true for people at work, in fact more so specifically because at the vast majority of work places you are not allowed to administer your own computer, they have help desk to assist you and usually everything they project you need is pre-installed. That is the average user's experience at the majority of work places and thus the average user can really only navigate the UI on work computers, which (coming full circle then) is a conflation of UI navigation and administration, which cannot and should not be conflated as they are entirely different

 

[Alaric]

I've used a lot of computers in the workplace, and been the IT go-to guy in a dealership with 15+ Windows rigs. Not once did I run across anyone so backwards as to not be able to function beyond point and shoot. And "navigating the UI" is all that's required for Windows. Writing code, .cmd line changes, and modifying .cfg files with Notepad isn't needed 99% of the time because Windows does what it's supposed to do within the UI. That was my point, and it's the same with home users. "Within the UI" is Windows. That's why there are windows in the OS. The basic structure does the job for the overwhelming majority of users. I haven't had to dig into OS configuration for years now, and I can still generally make Windows do whatever I want. I've forgotten lots of DOS (.cmd line commands) and can't recall most of what I learned in XP, yet I had an XP Pro rig up and running and online within 30 minutes of dropping the disc in the ODD tray last week. And now I don't have to remember all those tricks and tips to streamline and hot rod XP, because there are numerous apps that do it all for me. Click, click, done.

Windows does everything a computer is expected to do, faster and easier in almost every use scenario for the average user because they are familiar with the layout. Is Linux faster or more efficient in some scenarios? Sure, of course it is. Are most PC users ever in those scenarios because Windows can't do it? Nope. Computers were supposed to make things easier. Intentionally adopting an OS that is harder to use, less universally compliant, and without universal support, makes it a non starter for billions, not hundreds, of people who want to surf the web and print inspirational quotes. And for a small business that just wants to move products/services out the door without an expensive, dedicated, IT department Linux is pointless without a major effort towards web presence/servers. And Windows can do that, too. And do that without a permanent and ongoing investment in full time support staff. Linux just isn't able to replace Windows in most real world cases. Not because it can't do the job, but because the job is already being done by Windows. If the problem is solved, why bother working on it further?

I see a lot of "once it's set up" and "when you get it installed" regarding ease of use, but "ease of use" for the average user starts when you drop the disc in the tray (or load the .iso on the flash drive). You can't just ignore that part. Install and set up are investments in time and effort that have to be considered as part of the whole. And then we have all the ways to port Windows software to Linux, or set up apps to "do what the Windows app does", find software that accomplishes the tasks that Windows accomplishes with native support...or just install Windows and be done with it.

By the time Linux is a better alternative for the average user they aren't the average user anymore. I'm not saying Linux "can't", but it's a day late and several dollars short.

 

[Tír na nÓg]

Android is Linux, right?

So, why don't they develop "Android like" distros for x86?

Ah, yes, google doesn't really care...

IMHO, Linux has many uses (networking, security, entreprise, hacking...), but home, office and productivity usages ar not part of it, unless you want to narrow you horizon.

My 2 cents though...

 

[Stratus_ss]

I've used a lot of computers in the workplace, and been the IT go-to guy in a dealership with 15+ Windows rigs. Not once did I run across anyone so backwards as to not be able to function beyond point and shoot. And "navigating the UI" is all that's required for Windows. Writing code, .cmd line changes, and modifying .cfg files with Notepad isn't needed 99% of the time because Windows does what it's supposed to do within the UI. That was my point, and it's the same with home users. "Within the UI" is Windows. That's why there are windows in the OS. The basic structure does the job for the overwhelming majority of users. I haven't had to dig into OS configuration for years now, and I can still generally make Windows do whatever I want. I've forgotten lots of DOS (.cmd line commands) and can't recall most of what I learned in XP, yet I had an XP Pro rig up and running and online within 30 minutes of dropping the disc in the ODD tray last week. And now I don't have to remember all those tricks and tips to streamline and hot rod XP, because there are numerous apps that do it all for me. Click, click, done.

Windows does everything a computer is expected to do, faster and easier in almost every use scenario for the average user because they are familiar with the layout. Is Linux faster or more efficient in some scenarios? Sure, of course it is. Are most PC users ever in those scenarios because Windows can't do it? Nope. Computers were supposed to make things easier. Intentionally adopting an OS that is harder to use, less universally compliant, and without universal support, makes it a non starter for billions, not hundreds, of people who want to surf the web and print inspirational quotes. And for a small business that just wants to move products/services out the door without an expensive, dedicated, IT department Linux is pointless without a major effort towards web presence/servers. And Windows can do that, too. And do that without a permanent and ongoing investment in full time support staff. Linux just isn't able to replace Windows in most real world cases. Not because it can't do the job, but because the job is already being done by Windows. If the problem is solved, why bother working on it further?

I see a lot of "once it's set up" and "when you get it installed" regarding ease of use, but "ease of use" for the average user starts when you drop the disc in the tray (or load the .iso on the flash drive). You can't just ignore that part. Install and set up are investments in time and effort that have to be considered as part of the whole. And then we have all the ways to port Windows software to Linux, or set up apps to "do what the Windows app does", find software that accomplishes the tasks that Windows accomplishes with native support...or just install Windows and be done with it.

By the time Linux is a better alternative for the average user they aren't the average user anymore. I'm not saying Linux "can't", but it's a day late and several dollars short.

You are of course free to opine whatever you wish. I think your starting point is wrong and frankly I dont even know what the point of starting a thread like this is it serves no purpose than to give you a place to intentionally throw FUD around and stir things up. To this end you have succeeded

The average user doesn't setup windows and would be as intimidated to do that as to install linux. If you dont think you can click next-next-next in a linux install then you haven't installed one of the desktop distros for quite some time.

Regarding administering Windows, your example of "Windows does what its supposed to" is a crock. There are legions of Windows Administrators that I am sure would be none-to-pleased that you have basically said they don't do anything and are unneeded. You are creating straw-man arguments all over the place as a means to justify your belief. I understand this temptation but you seem to be having a hard time expressing an argument and defending it. Instead, when an idea faces scrutiny you appear to change tactics by conflating ideas together that do not belong. On the surface they may even seem like that makes sense to do so, but those with more indepth knowledge can see that your arguments ring hollow.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one because you obviously are either not understanding my point of view or are simply dismissing it because it is opposed to your own. This is fine and you are free to do so. In the future though, perhaps expressing a clearly defined reason for starting a post which, as far as I can tell, has no value whatsoever (other than to stir things up) might be well advised. It is disingenious, rude and down right insulting to come to an area of the forums and essentially spout out "the purpose for this forum is pointless and this thing you guys like has little value" as seen in the title of your post I really find Linux useless for most things

EDIT: I misread which user was the OP. Apologies for mixing Alaric and the OP up

 

[Tír na nÓg]

You are of course free to opine whatever you wish. I think your starting point is wrong and frankly I dont even know what the point of starting a thread like this is it serves no purpose than to give you a place to intentionally throw FUD around and stir things up. To this end you have succeeded

The average user doesn't setup windows and would be as intimidated to do that as to install linux. If you dont think you can click next-next-next in a linux install then you haven't installed one of the desktop distros for quite some time.

Regarding administering Windows, your example of "Windows does what its supposed to" is a crock. There are legions of Windows Administrators that I am sure would be none-to-pleased that you have basically said they don't do anything and are unneeded. You are creating straw-man arguments all over the place as a means to justify your belief. I understand this temptation but you seem to be having a hard time expressing an argument and defending it. Instead, when an idea faces scrutiny you appear to change tactics by conflating ideas together that do not belong. On the surface they may even seem like that makes sense to do so, but those with more indepth knowledge can see that your arguments ring hollow.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one because you obviously are either not understanding my point of view or are simply dismissing it because it is opposed to your own. This is fine and you are free to do so. In the future though, perhaps expressing a clearly defined reason for starting a post which, as far as I can tell, has no value whatsoever (other than to stir things up) might be well advised. It is disingenious, rude and down right insulting to come to an area of the forums and essentially spout out "the purpose for this forum is pointless and this thing you guys like has little value" as seen in the title of your post I really find Linux useless for most things

EDIT: I misread which user was the OP. Apologies for mixing Alaric and the OP up

He did not start the thread

Anyway, I don't think Alaric says Linux is useless, just that it is not as "user friendly" as Windows, and that's OK. My IT genius bud swears only by Linux (he types faster than he speaks, lol!), but he is not the average user.

 

[Alaric]

"Opinion" is what sells Windows. And I'm not trying to "justify" my beliefs, I'm simply stating where they come from and what experiences formed them. I'll simplify for the sake of clarity: Billions of people use Windows because it does what they want, when they want it done, in a manner that satisfies their needs.

Billions of people have no desire or need to change their OS because a few people claim their choice is "superior". Administering Windows in a small business requires no more than hiring an accountant or general manager who "knows Windows" sufficient to run backups most of the time. M$ is a phone call away for the rest. I haven't seen the phone number for the "Linux Central Tech Line Regardless Of Distro" yet. Because it doesn't exist.

Larger use scenarios (not small business) have IT departments to coordinate software distribution, backup, security, and generally un#*&@ large numbers of consoles. I never said Windows was flawless nor did I say Winows Enterprise IT Administrators were superfluous. Small businesses are the vast majority of business users of Windows and don't generally have a suite of offices labeled "IT". Because they don't need one. Functional Windows administrators ( for small businesses) far outnumber their Linux counterparts and are frequently a "bonus skill" in addition to their primary skills at hiring. My ability to keep the shop computers up and running was secondary to being the service manager/warranty administrator. It also made me more money and saved my employer same.

Billions of home and small business and education consumers choose Windows because of functionality and familiarity/ease of use, along with universal support and application. That is their opinion. If they were all wrong Linux would actually be a competitive OS and this discussion wouldn't be happening.

The discussion wasn't about which is "better", it was about whether or not Linux fills a need for most uses. Linux straight up isn't needed for most of the world's computing population. It has a place, it has niches that it fills better than Windows, it is in no way, shape, or form, suitable for replacing Windows for 3/4+ of the world's population because they don't want it. That is their "opinion", and in the final examination, that's all that counts in the marketplace. And the marketplace is the need. As long as the Sons of Unix are a very distant second place, efforts to mainstream application of such will be an afterthought to most developers. Bill Gates won, it's that simple. At this point in time it's irrelevant whether or not that's right, wrong, or indifferent. It is the overwhelming consensus we're stuck with.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[ihrsetrdr]

So, just for the record, I'd like to hear exactly why...what is the reason for Windows users posting here and trying(in vein, I might add) to insist that Windows is better because of....what....because billions of people use it? And, please tell me why I should care?

Do Windows users feel like they gotta prove something? If so, what would that be?


Feel free to use your computers as you choose, makes no difference to me.

 

[Alaric]

No, no, no. The OP stated he had little real world use for Linux outside some specific tasks, due to lack of support. It was the Linux crowd that leapt to its defense. Prompting the response "Linux is better because dozens of people use it" Don't have to "prove" anything. I said Widows was the winner, not universally "better".
I'm not taking any of this personally, BTW. I respect everybody here and their personal choice of OS.

And yeah, by several measures (support, universal acceptance, widespread usage, third party support) Windows is a better choice for most because billions of people use it. Feedback and implementation by billions of people made it so. It was intended to be a "people's OS" from the very beginning, and has been shaped and refined as such for 35 years by the users. The broader reach has allowed (demanded) a broader range of usefulness. Linux was a lab routine to eliminate unnecessary bloat from scientific computing. It's like the difference between benchmarking and gaming. If you're after that last nth of speed from some specific tasks, Linux is your guy. If you want the eye candy and all the bells and whistles and 48+ million lines of sophisticated code tying the cyber universe together for Joe Six Pack with a few clicks, it's Windows all the way. Especially if you want your 6 year old printer to churn out recipes and memes to hang on your cubicle wall. The universal acceptance, functionality, and ease of use (including install and customization) of Windows is where the target is. Love it or hate it, (or in between like most of us) Windows didn't set the bar, it is the bar.