Like it or not, Linux is still not really user friendly compared to a windows computer. Users still have to do command line stuff, and the software you are used to is not available. The equivalents are not as shiny as the windows versions. Macs might be too expensive for some people who are still running on old hardware.
In my experience with Linux desktop, this could be "have the touchpad work the same as it did on Windows", "plug in an extra monitor and have it behave somewhat normally", or "play this game". But yeah, I guess that as long as we only expect "average users" to only use a web browser to look at Youtube, it's fine.
> have the touchpad work the same as it did on Windows", "plug in an extra monitor and have it behave somewhat normally", or "play this game".
I have no idea how touchpads behave on Windows, but in, say, Gnome or KDE, you can adjust it through the GUI. Extra monitors work fine on Gnome. Steam works fine in general, across distros.
GNOME and KDE both have the same touchpad gestures as Windows 10/11, and the monitor extension logic is basically identical too (GNOME even has a Win+P accelerator). Game variety hasn't really been an issue since the Steam Deck came out, with apologies to League of Legends addicts that probably ought to move on with their lives anyways.
Like, I understand that my MRI operator can't just install Linux on their PC. But the majority of people are usually not dependent on Windows-exclusive software, especially in the smartphone era.
Everytime I tried touchpad on windows laptops I disered it worked as well as in Linux.
I know things have improved a bit after 10, but I used to say that it is easy to see who is using windows because they always brought their mice with their laptops.
Not Ubuntu, but we need a Linux that's pretty, standardized, simple, fail-safe, developed as an immutable whole, consistent, and integrated as macOS and long-term compatible similar to Windows without the M+MAANG corporate bullshit of either, perhaps through a non-profit, employee-owned co-op social venture.
Perhaps a far more polished and documented version of Qubes with various btrfs trees selectively presented cleanly to appropriate VM containers. Focus on the user UX meets the dev/ops UX but without gimmicks, not-invented-here, or fragility. All of the various desktop-laptop things need to work without surprises and be easily configurable with a UI. For fleet management, a desktop OS really needs simple, programmatic/declarative/imperative MDM- and/or chef-like configuration agent or hooks.
Linux is significantly more user-friendly than Windows, the problem is it's unfamiliar. Windows is cryptic, roundabout, and very much the black sheep of modern operating systems. Nothing makes sense, there's a dozen settings panels, everything is everywhere, and the OS just breaks seemingly randomly if you leave it alone for long enough.
But we, consumers, have gotten so accustomed to the jank of Windows that we perceive it as intuitiveness. But is it really so? Just consider: what would Grandma have an easier time using? Elementary OS, or Windows 11? To me, the answer seems obvious. But we don't optimize for Grandma.
You absolutely don't have to. There's no reason for normal users to ever touch the command line, every essential task (installing stuff, updating) can be done through the GUI on most distros. Certainly the main ones like Ubuntu, Fedora and openSuse.
> the software you are used to is not available
This is the main issue. The average user has a meltdown if a single button moves. I still remember the Office ribbon fiasco, Windows 8 fiasco, etc...
1. Windows comes pre-installed. That means >99% of users (and I mean this literally) will not even consider running anything else (probably they don't even realise there's such a thing as not-Windows on a PC).
2. Enterprise software runs on Windows, that creates enough lock-in for Windows to always be a majority.
I'm back to Windows for a new $job. It's truly awful in so many ways, Linux is a joy by comparison for daily driving, with Mac a close-ish second.
With one difference: I'm not scared of software upgrades. The number of times my laptop was semi-bricked by an update, usually graphics driver, which required frantic googling for random commands, GRUB scripts with enormous disclaimers about how mistyping something will brick the laptop for good, discussions about Nouveau and how it's lal Nvidia's fault really... That's bad, always was, never got better for me, and I really don't miss it.
I use Debian stable. I'm utterly unafraid Debian's security patches, in fact I just accept them on my home server boxes without inspection. The same can not be said for Windows - I'm seen Windows security upgrades render boxes unbootable.
Moving between between versions is a different matter. Yes, Windows does it better, but not reliably enough for me to trust it. So for both Debian and Windows it's a case of replace the drive, and do a fresh install. In Debian's case, zstd < /dev/sda >/mnt/usb/sda-backup.zstd also works, if you have time to kill. Copying everything to a squashfs image also works well.
If your using Ubunt then your experience will be different. People who choosing Ubuntu over Debian is as perplexing to me as people voluntarily using Windows.
I often notice that Linux (and maybe some BSDs) can accommodate two extremes on the tech competence spectrum especially well: the least opinionated users may treat their computer as a black box and just enjoy web browsing / chatting / media with some help, while the most savvy can extract value from tailored and private setups (like stability of Debian or power of Nix).
At the same time, Linux on the desktop fails often for everyone in between: the learning curve is still higher (especially for people coming from Windows), and some very specialized professional proprietary software can be missing.
Luckily, as mentioned in the article, Microsoft tries to make the balance more equal.
Writing this as a person who has used Linux for the last 15 years with a 2-year break for macOS and back.
> the learning curve is still higher (especially for people coming from Windows)
I don't think the learning curve is higher at all. It's roughly the same as with Windows. But if you're coming from Windows, the fact that you have to mount a learning curve for the new OS can be a real friction point. When most people learned Windows, they did so over time, without pressure. If you're switching operating systems, you likely want to become competent in it very quickly. That can make it seem like the learning curve is higher when, in fact, it's just that you're trying to run up that hill faster.
I agree with you per se that the learning curve in many ways is a function from your past experience, but there's no contradiction with what I previously stated in the context of this article - since émigré from Windows will obviously have some experience with Windows, they have this learning bias already, and potentially a different mindset/expectations (the most famous - why can't I just download an .exe?!)
Some [1] Linux distros were even trying to emulate this experience (which is a dead end obviously)
You'd have to know what an operating system is, that you can install a different one than Windows, and still be able to run all of your software on the new one or acceptable substitutes.
That said, Steam OS for desktop (if ever) would be a serious contender, since a big chunk of high-end PCs are only used for gaming and internet browsing.
That is the funny thing - this regularly happens when a new OS comes out. People have been observing for decades now how Microsoft keeps the hardware industry afloat.
And even now, even though there is a "standard" and schemas for, MS's apps mostly ignore them, or use undocumented extensions (as far as I'm aware), so it the whole thing was truly straight from MS's embrace/extend/extinguish playbook.
But also new people grow up with their school-provided Windows/Apple/ChromeOS laptops and only know mobile phones beyond that so the trend is probably not all that positive.
Ableton or Lightroom both have some level of support under Wine but it depends on the version you need. But both also have alternatives and IME killer-apps tend to become a lot less important once users have sufficient other motivations. Nothing is really irreplaceable.
I would love to replace Lightroom, but unfortunately the alternatives just aren't as good.
There are good alternatives to Ableton, but once you get to know a DAW it is hard to switch. And running a DAW with an ecosystem of 3rd party VST plugins and low level access to audio hardware on Wine sounds like a recipe for a bad time, but I confess I haven't tried it.
So, yes, these things are possible, but it is still easier to just use Windows.
Man, I'm not so sure about that. The M-series Macbooks are just crazy good for speed and battery life. The basic bottom-tier Macbook is $1000 and will do for a vast majority of people. A $330 Windows laptop is going to be a phenomenal heap of junk. People were running Ableton on 16GB M1 Macbooks a couple of years ago.
Yes, the bottom tier MacBook Air is about £1k, but only comes with a 256gb SSD. You can get a decent windows laptop for about that price with 1tb of storage and 32gb of memory. A similar spec Mac is close to £3k. CPU wise they are all fine for real-time audio, but the extra storage really matters.
