Iām going to very carefully poke the hornetās nest here and ask this basic question that I never really explicitly formulated. It seems apt here on Lemmy in particular because people take as a given the superiority of Linux as the starting point of conversations involved computers generally.
Iām not here to refute this, but I am thinking I should interrogate it a bit more. Iāll start with an āaverageā user, to which Iāll have to give some sort of definition.
Imagine somebody with a low to moderate concern about privacy, more than none, but not much more and will happily trade it for useful or enjoyable services. Imagine the use case of a desktop computer for this type of person is productivity software they use at work/school, and occasionally for their own purposes too because theyāre familiar with it. They also like to watch movies, browse the web, and communicate with friends and family using popular free software packages. Security isnāt much of a worry for them, but they do engage in private communication and also banking and will pour a lot of personal information in to the machine in exchange for a lot of useful abilities like paying bills and organising their life.
Now also picture this person is open minded, at least a little and willing to hear you out on the concept of operating systems and of Linux in particular. Is it automatically in such a personās interests to switch to Linux? And is it always a good idea to start with supposition that it is and that the only barrier is hesitancy and ignorance? Would any of their needs actually be better met should they switch? A lot of this discussion tends to devolve in to whether it is or isnāt hard for such a person to use Linux should they make the switch and whether using Linux is inherently more difficult than for example Windows but I think whatās missed here is, assuming itās super easy to switch for an āaverageā user and perfectly easy to operate thereafter, is it actually better in such a case? If the needs are so basic, what has been gained? Is it mostly an ideological preference for the philosophical concepts behind the open source movement? That could be enough in and of itself perhaps, you could pitch Linux as ābetterā within that framework at least for the ideals it promotes. I feel like I sense thereās a desire to push Linux for this reason on the thinking that if just one more person joins the fold so to speak, then it generally pushes the world at large vaguely in the right direction in some small way. But is there anything more tangibly superior for an āaverageā user? It seems like nowadays hardware has long surpassed the needs of users like these such that things like āperformanceā donāt seem all that relevant considering almost any available platform could fulfill these needs so thoroughly that theoretically superior performance from the software would seem not to play a role. There is the security and privacy aspect, certainly for me, that definitely puts me off Windows but if an āaverageā user says they donāt care about this things, can you really say theyāre being foolhardy in a practical sense? In a wider view, arguably, in the way that it pushes the world in a generally worse direction, but for them directly in the near to medium or even long term, whatās going to happen if they just donāt even worry about it? People say Windows has poor security, but for the number of people using it, just how many will personally experience actual measurable harm from this? Despite pouring so much personal information in to their computer, I suspect they could likely go a lifetime without experiencing identity theft, or harrassment from authorities, or tangible/financial losses. I suspect they probably know that too. That seems to me again like it really only leaves more of a ādigital veganismā approach to Linuxās virtues. Thatās appealing to some, to me a bit even but itās a much narrower basis for proclaiming it āsuperiorā
Now at the other end of the spectrum, the users that are not the least āaverageā who run Linux on their home systems and probably at work, use open source alternatives for every possible service and do not need conversion as they themselves are Linux preachers. What is it that they typically get out of Linux? Iāve heard many say they enjoy ātinkeringā. I get that, is that the main benefit though? It seems then that the appeal is that itās kind of āhardā, like a puzzle, but I donāt think any of this crowd would like that assessment. What do you want to tinker with though that closed systems would prevent you from doing? This probably goes to the heart of it because itās the point at which I think probably most diverge from say an IT professional or programmer that loves Linux, I am too ignorant here to know what I donāt know and I just canāt really conceive of a scenario where I might for example want to personally modify the kernel of an operating system. Most examples I see if that type of thing is people making hardware work, and itās ingenious and impressive but the hardware is usually that part of the setup thatās not democratised and not open source, itās usually something off the shelf it seems to me that that hardware would have worked already on a more popular platform. Likewise when you eke out of last bit of performance out of a system, what are you actually doing with it? I mean I get that itās a crying shame for hardware to be hobbled by lousy software but if the use for the hardware, the need for computing to be done can be met with existing platforms, what is done with the savings from the better software?
Maybe if I try it this way around. If you suddenly had to switch to using Windows from tomorrow onwards, besides the usual teething period of adjusting to something different, would your capacity to do your work be impeded in a meaningful way that would be inherently impossible/not worth it to overcome?
Also, though you didnāt say it yourself I gather some like the idea that if they wanted to try something unusual they could tinker with the kernel even if they probably wouldnāt, but even in the unusual case, why would you?
Going back to the car analogy I think that puts it very well, but actually it does also circle me back to my initial source of interest. I mentally always put Linux as the highly capable sports car with Windows as the Yaris, but I realise that I am just assuming thatās the case without knowing exactly what makes that inherently so. With cars for example I will assume that the āsports carā is faster and has a lot of features to make driving fast work better like increased safety structures and better handling so when youāre actually going fast you can steer without crashing. Whatās the broad and general basis of comparison in the context of computing?
For me, yes, but itās mostly for personal reasons (severe hate of Microsoft, etc), I would not expect that of others. Also my job is managing Linux servers so having to go from native terminal to Putty etc would be a definite downgrade in tool quality. But again, this would not be the typical case.
TBH, I donāt think Iām qualified to answer as I havenāt hardly touched a Windows computer in a decade.
I used a Mac for a couple years because I had to for work around 2016 and it felt like a shitty Linux distro that decided to wall itself in to me. I just remember having to work around limits and bad decisions. An example of a recent one not directly experienced, I work with Ansible, my co-workers on Macs have to do these hacks to be able to programatically SSH to servers using a password because Apple decided it was too insecure. But now I have to do that step for them, they can continue once keys are set up.
This oneās interesting to me because I havenāt really used Linux since about 2009 and thatās because I had to start using Mac for work around that time and found that I liked it and after running a ārealā Mac into the ground, I ran a hackintosh for many years to replace it so Mac OS is more my personal wheelhouse.
Iāve found it to be simultaneously one of the most restrictive and āfree-estā platforms Iāve used other than Linux since a surprising amount of stuff is initially disallowed in a very noticeable and in your face way when you start using it and other capabilities seem not restricted but sort ofā¦ hidden, because of a general gist of a push towards Appleās way of doing things and Appleās walled garden (although itās a nice comfortable pretty garden). But then at the same time I find that you can pretty much just ignore all of the gentle nudging towards certain ways of doing things and tell it NOT to restrict you when you find that it has and it just steps out of the way dutifully. Iām surprised then that your colleagues found an actual hard limit but it does sound quite beyond anything Iād be doing.
While I say it steps out of your way if you tell it to, that does somewhat beg the question though of why bother with it if youāre just going to ignore the whole Apple side of Apple Mac OS when it is kind of the main thing theyāre offering with the platform? Actually I find I have an answer for that which is thatās itās just really nice to use and I can dabble with Terminal and adjusting things here and there and using open source command line tools from package managers via terminal or with front ends and then also on the same system go completely commercial and use very mainstream software and tools. As you said it feels like some kind of Linux distro although certainly not in spirit and in your estimation a downright āshittyā one.
There are ways around it I think, just hacky they didnāt want to do on their machines IIRC
Custom made embedded systems, low latency audio workstations, GPU optimized graphics rendering. Truly there are a lot of things you would want a fine-tuned kernel.
But what you are missing in your view of the analogy is customization. The real problem is that Microsoft sells Windows as the OS that is supposed to do everything. This is akin to Toyota selling the Yaris, for everything. Off road driving? try a Yaris, high speed competition? the Yaris is the car, drag racing? why not go with a Yaris. For the average Joe doing a commute to work and back home with the occasional grocery run, the Yaris is fine, and he thinks he has a deal in hands. Nevermind the car has features behind paywalls and the speedometer shows ads regularly obstructing the view of the speed.
In this analogy Linux is not one alternative car. Itās a fleet of multiple different brands, types and styles of cars. You can choose anyone you like, but still have the option to customize it further to fit your needs. What is appealing about Linux for the average user? Ask the people who daily drive Land Rovers or prefer a CrossOver when a Minivan would better fit their needs. You donāt see UPS delivering from a Yaris, they use the tool they need, a van. Just like data centers donāt use Windows Home Edition to serve cloud services, they use something like Red Hat.
Why should average Joe use Linux? It is up to him. Not to Linux. Linux offers the wide array of options and opportunities. If he wants the Yaris, he should use the Yaris. But if he wants something other than traffic and highway driving, Linux is always there. But, that said, Linux also offers affordable everyday appliance options like Linux Mint that just works and doesnāt show ads in the notifications.