https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Linux-make-sense-for-the-average-user?share=1

(This post is about the sixth one down on the page.)

Linux Maintenance & Linux Security at Consultants (1992�present)Author
has 37.3K answers and 26.4M answer views9mo

Q: Why doesn't Linux make sense for the average user?

A: Great question because the Linux fan-boys always try to make ether
excuses for Linux, but in reality its a terrible platform for the
average user, I know because I own a computer consulting company in
Silicon Valley that has supported linux since 1992, so we get the
frustrated supports calls every single day

Linux is a terrible user experience for the average user, it requires
far too much knowledge and far too much work compared to using Windows
or macOS

First the user has to choose fro 895 Linux distributions that we know
of

Ok, so now there are only 200 distributions, that is still too much
for the average user to be able to deal with (the have a hard enough
time to try and decide between Windows and macOS)

And it illuminate the next set of problems with Linux
895 distributions, 695 have died, abandoning theft users
You cannot pick a distribution for the average user because that
clearly defies their claim that Linux gives you a free choice.

So the user has a high possibility that they will choose a
distribution that will fail and let them down, since 75% of Linux
distributions have failed.

Linux has a few distributions that claim that they are easily
installed, supposedly automated, and yet the Linux support forums are
filled with complaints due to failed installations.

Which then exposes the average user to the hostility on the Linux
support forums which is frankly quite shocking and unnecessary
Yes, they should read the forums posts but there are a millions posts
and that would take too long to go through

Yes, they can use the search feature but that just brings down the
possibilities down to tens of thousands of questions, each with
thousands of comments, most of which don�t have usable answers
Then they experience culture-shock when they find that Linux user
experience is stick in the 1990s, it truly is crude and clunky no make
how many fancy glitzy bling they hang on those old user interfaces,
its truly sad and disappointing

If the user interface was a shock then the apps are downright
disappointing with their 1990s user experience, inconsistent
experience, klutzy behavior and lack of features

Then the next complaint is that the major apps that they want are not
made for Linux, adding massively to their disappointment
Now, the fan-boys will claim that they can get any app they want from
the repository for that specific distribution but that is an outright
lie

Maybe the apps they want will be there, but far too often its not, so
the fan-boys will tell the average user to go to another repository,
get the source code, figure out and resolve all the library conflicts,
then compile the source code into an executable app
That is all great if you are a computer expert, I can do it in my
sleep and I have had to do it nearly every time I work on Linux
because the needed apps are never in the repository BUT the average
user cannot do any of that at all

The problems just pile up but the bottom line is that Linux is not
appropriate for the average user because it relies too heavily on a
1990s do it yourself user experience

That is why Linux desktop has a near zero user population

The latest international (honest) study of actual desktop personal
computer user share (in the real world) is revealing:
Windows 79%
macOS 20%
Linux 0.7%
BSD 0.3%

Obviously Linux has a near Zero desktop user market share because its
nearly useless to the average desktop personal computer user
Yes the Linux fan-boys will claim that their grandpa uses Linux just
fine, what they don�t tell you is that they provided the tech support
to get grandpa going, grandpa did not evaluate 200 different
distributions to see which was best for then, their grandson did all
that work; grandpa did not instal it by himself, grandson installed it
for grandpa; grandpa did not learn how to install or maintain Linux,
in fact grandpa doesn't even know how to use Linux at all, all grandpa
knows is where to click to get eh web browser launched, then he knows
which bookmark to click on for email and which bookmark for Facebook,
and grandpa is all set, that is all that grandpa needs to do so
grandson really just turned it into the simplest possible appliance so
grandpa doesn�t know �Linux� he just knows where to click to get
email/Facebook

Nomen Nescio wrote on 16/10/22 1:31 am:
> https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Linux-make-sense-for-the-average-user?share=1

I'm guessing .... Because when 'the average user' buys a computer, it is
already set up to do most of the stuff they need it for .... ON A
WINDOWS OS and desktop!!
--
Daniel

"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

| I'm guessing .... Because when 'the average user' buys a computer, it is
| already set up to do most of the stuff they need it for .... ON A
| WINDOWS OS and desktop!!

The average user needs to do email, shop online, visit
social media, perhaps use MS Office... They need it to
just work. And they'll need periodic adjustments. Maybe
they can handle a Firefox update. They definitely can't
handle console windows.

Linux has its uses. I have a Raspberry Pi that I use to
stream movies to a TV. It works fine. I also set up a
friend with one. She's never used anything but a Mac.

It works for her because 1) I took care of all the confusing
commandline crap needed to set it up and 2) the device
doesn't need interactive usability. You just boot it, open
Chromium, and go to Netflix. I could use the Pi as a Desktop
OS, but it's useless for that. 3) Security doesn't much matter
because it's only streaming movies.

People claim Linux is very
secure, but without being a Linux expert, I can't tell. What I
know is that it goes out to get software updates to who-knows-
where and on Windows I can do that myself. I don't allow anything
out unless I'm using it. On Linux I can theoretically do my
own updates, but the dependencies are hopelessly confusing.

Mayayana wrote on 16/10/22 11:36 pm:
> "Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
> | I'm guessing .... Because when 'the average user' buys a computer,
> it is | already set up to do most of the stuff they need it for ....
> ON A | WINDOWS OS and desktop!!
>
> The average user needs to do email, shop online,

My SeaMonkey Suite does those on my Linux AND Win7

> visit social media,

Newsgroups is about as close as I get to Social Media but I'm sure my
SeaMonkey Suite would do it if I wanted!

> perhaps use MS Office

LibreOffice Suite does most things .... but is causing me a problem with
a PDF file which it wants to convert to its own file format (.odg or
some such!!). Hmm!! Must check if Adobe does Linux!!

> ... They need it to just work. And they'll need periodic adjustments.
> Maybe they can handle a Firefox update. They definitely can't handle
> console windows.

Linux has Windows-like displays/desktops. Who needs Console windows??

> Linux has its uses. I have a Raspberry Pi that I use to stream movies
> to a TV. It works fine. I also set up a friend with one. She's never
> used anything but a Mac.
>
> It works for her because 1) I took care of all the confusing
> commandline crap needed to set it up and 2) the device doesn't need
> interactive usability. You just boot it, open Chromium, and go to
> Netflix. I could use the Pi as a Desktop OS, but it's useless for
> that. 3) Security doesn't much matter because it's only streaming
> movies.
>
> People claim Linux is very secure, but without being a Linux expert,
> I can't tell.

As I understand it, because most people use Windows, that's where most
of the naughty activity is aimed. Second, MacOS so second most naughty
activity then, a long way third, Linux so next to no naughty activity!!

What I know is that it goes out to get software updates
> to who-knows- where and on Windows I can do that myself.

Linux (well, at least the Mageia that I use) doesn't go out and get
updates, unlike Windows7, but will let you know that an update is
available for the (OfficeSuite/Program/Whatever) that you are using is
available ... you then tell it to get the updates or not!!

> I don't allow anything out unless I'm using it. On Linux I can
> theoretically do my own updates, but the dependencies are hopelessly
> confusing.

All the stuff I use must sort out its dependencies itself, I guess!!
--
Daniel

"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

| Linux has Windows-like displays/desktops. Who needs Console windows??
| Apparently you've never tried to do anything at all unusual.
Console windows are required for a lot of things. I couldn't
even get through the install with two versions, without searching
online and then doing commandline incantations.

| > People claim Linux is very secure, but without being a Linux expert,
| > I can't tell.
| | As I understand it, because most people use Windows, that's where most
| of the naughty activity is aimed.

That's not a security strategy. And attacks do happen
with Linux. The Linux geeks might be smart, but the system
isn't foolproof. The trouble is that there are only two usage
modes: super expert and fool.

| > I don't allow anything out unless I'm using it. On Linux I can
| > theoretically do my own updates, but the dependencies are hopelessly
| > confusing.
| | All the stuff I use must sort out its dependencies itself, I guess!!

Yes. It goes out on its own. I'd never allow that on Windows.
I even block mozilla domains because there's so much spying.
But if you don't let Linux operate that way then with every program
you're faced with dozens of unreadable file names. You need
gcrud v. 3.647.241.7 and you only have v. 3.647.241.5. And
the program won't work with that! It's an incredible mess of
libertarian confusion; because no one's in charge. No one's
responsible.

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[...]

> The Linux geeks might be smart, but the system
> isn't foolproof. The trouble is that there are only two usage
> modes: super expert and fool.

I have no recent Linux experience - only real UNIX experience -, but
AFAIK, Linux still has ACLs (Access Control Lists), which are similar to
Windows' Permissions.

Also a well setup/managed Linux/UNIX system shouldn't just have
"super expert" (root) and "fool" (ordinary users), but different
subsystems should have their own users, for example mail, news, lp,
etc., etc..

BTW, when I typed my first line above, I typed "Lunix". Freud strikes
again.

FWIW, I agree that Linux isn't fit-for-purpose for Joe User.

[...]

On 10/17/2022 8:05 AM, Mayayana wrote:

> You need gcrud v. 3.647.241.7 and you only have v. 3.647.241.5.

Linux has:

1) Curated package trees.
25000 packages, all neatly arranged, *dependencies correct*

2) Package manager pulls them in.
You don't lift a finger, except to
click to select what you want on your disk.
It's not 1990 any more. They figured this out.

As long as you stay in-tree, and don't mess around
too too much, you might never see a dependency issue.
Ordinary end-users, stay in tree. They don't know
enough to stray out of tree (that's why).

*******

So let's go offroad for a moment...

I build software outside the tree. There can be problems
when doing so. But then, there were *always* problems
doing that, and the current tree is such, there are
*fewer* problems, but not *zero* problems outside the tree.
For example, if I want libjpeg in an image viewing program I'm
compiling, in the package manager I select and install
"libjpeg-dev" and that has the header file and the .so
library file, for my gcc command to draw upon. If I'm
static compiling, I can bind the libjpeg library right into
my executable file.

To build FFMPEG from source, you might have to turn thirty of
those on. Yes, that's hard work, as the names don't line up
with the names inside the FFMPEG source. But the package
manager is a powerful assistant, while you do the work.

You can even pull FFMPEG *source* through the package
manager, and ask the system to build it the same way
as the Ubuntu guy did. Now, all the "libjpeg-dev"
entries in the tree, have been ticked for you, so that
auto-build process could work. Now, if you want to make
a tiny change to the source, you can, and recompile, and
the rails are all greased for you. Do you know what
an improvement that is over the old way ? It's *miles*
ahead of doing it in year 1990. *Light years* even.
In the package manager, you click the tick box next to
"source" repository, to put the source tree online for
your usage in that way. It is not ticked by default
(because, what kind of idiot does this software
building thing).

If you did that, did the FFMPEG auto-build, then pulled
an FFMPEG nightly from last night from the parent site,
then there is a good chance that ./configure and make,
will just run for you on the nightly. As the rail greasing,
not too many versions of things will have changed with
respect to the nightly you want to build. You build a
nightly, if there is a feature (HEVC/HEIC) you want,
that your version does not have.

If you build a nightly in that way, take source that is
*uncurated*, put it in your home directory and build it,
you are responsible for version numbers. But if there
is an older release version in the tree, your attempt
to "auto-build" that, provides so much of the assistance
(box ticking) you need for your nightly build, it cannot
help but work. Maybe only one version thing needs to be
fixed for your build to work.

You won't be building anything on Linux, but I do... occasionally.
I built FFMPEG, because I wanted NVDEC and NVENC to work
as intended, and license rules in the OS prevented the
release version from having those boxes ticked. I fixed that.
(Ticking a box to pull in the lib, plus a command line
thing is all that is required for the repair.)

I benched NVDEC and NVENC in Linux, and it was slightly
faster than the Windows version of FFMPEG. That's what I
set out to check, is how much performance was being
left on the floor. And it's not enough to worry about.
If someone was transcoding their movie tree, I would
not recommend a move to Linux, just to do that. The
Windows version is fast enough (330 frames per second
on a GTX1050).

*******

People using Firefox and LibreOffice, can use it at
just the same level as a Windows user would. They're already
on the desktop. They're part of the desktop package. For
basic things, the menus are already populated with things
you can actually use.

And Firefox on Ubuntu, is handled roughly the same way
a Metro App is handled on Windows. The Firefox Snap package
has updating and security similar to a Metro App. Yes,
updating is annoying, and it's no different in this case.
I'm sure they will fix this eventually. Too many users
are making fun of them.

Paul