I thought I’ll make this thread for all of you out there who have questions but are afraid to ask them. This is your chance!
I’ll try my best to answer any questions here, but I hope others in the community will contribute too!
I thought I’ll make this thread for all of you out there who have questions but are afraid to ask them. This is your chance!
I’ll try my best to answer any questions here, but I hope others in the community will contribute too!
Why does it feel that Linux infighting is the main reason why it never takes off? It’s always “distro X sucks”, “installing from Y is stupid”, “any system running Z should burn”
Linux generally has a higher (perceived?) technical barrier to entry so people who opt to go that route often have strong opinions on exactly what they want from it. Not to mention that technical discussions in general are often centered around decided what the “right” way to do a thing is. That said regardless of how the opinions are stated, options aren’t a bad thing.
This.
It is a ‘built-in’ social problem: Only people who care enough to switch to Linux do it, and this people are pre-selected to have strong opinions.
Exactly the same can be observed in all kind of alternative projects, for example alternative housing projects usually die because of infighting for everyone has their own definition of how it should work.
There’s no infighting. It just feels that way because you picked an inferior distribution.
Doesn’t feel like that to me. I’ll need to see evidence that that is the main reason. It could be but I just don’t see it.
I mean, Wayland is still a hot topic, as are snaps and flatpaks. Years ago it was how the GTK2 to GTK3 upgrade messed up Gnome (not unlike the python 2 to 3 upgrade), some hardcore people still want to fight against systemd. Maybe it’s just “the loud detractors”, dunno
Why would one be discouraged by the fact that people have options and opinions on them? That’s the part I’m not buying. I don’t disagree that people do in fact disagree and argue. I don’t know if I’d call it fighting. People being unreasonably aggressive about it are rare.
I for one am glad that people argue. It helps me explore different options without going through the effort of trying every single one myself.
I’m using wayland right now, but still use X11 sometimes. I love the discussion and different viewpoints. They are different protocols, with different strengths and weaknesses. People talking about it js a vitrue in my opinion
I can only use x11 myself. The drivers for Wayland on nvidia aren’t ready for prime time yet, my browser flickers and some games don’t render properly. I’m frankly surprised the KDE folks shipped it out
I like the fact that I can exercise my difficulty with usage commitment by installing both and switching between them :D.
Wayland is so buttery smooth it feels like I just upgraded my computer for free…but I still get some window Z-fighting and screen recording problems and other weirdness.
I’m glad X11 is still there to fall back on, even if it really feels janky from an experience point of view now.
For me, it’s building software from source on musl. Just one more variable to contend with
Being I’m on Mint Cinnamon and using an Nvidia card, I’ve never even tried to run Wayland on this machine. Seems to work okay on the little Lenovo I put Fedora GNOME on. X11 is still working remarkably well for me, and I’m looking forward to the new features in Wayland once the last few kinks are worked out with it.
deleted by creator
Linux users are often very passionate about the software they put on their computers, so they tend to argue about it. I think the customization and choices scares off a lot of beginners, I think the main reason is lack of compatibility with Windows software out of the box. People generally want to use software they are used to.
Because you don’t have an in person user group and only interact online where the same person calling all mandrake users fetal alcohol syndrome babies doesn’t turn around and help those exact people figure out their smb.conf or trade sopranos episodes with them at the lan party.
It did take off, just not so much on the Desktop. I think those infights are really just opinions and part of further development. Having choices might be a great part of the overall success.
Unix already had a significant presence in server computers during the late 80s, migrating to Linux wasn’t a big jump. Besides, the price of zero is a lot more attractive when the alternative option costs several thousand dollars
Dang, I WISH. Places that constantly beg for donations like public libraries and schools will have Windows-everything infrastructure “because market share”. (This is what I was told when I was interviewing for a library IT position)
They might have gotten “lucky” with a grant at some point, but having a bank of 30+ computers for test-taking that do nothing but run MS Access is a frivilous budget waste, and basically building your house on sand when those resources could go to, I dunno… paying teachers, maybe?
Licensing is weird especially in schools. It may very well be practically free for them to license. Or for very small numbers of computers they might be able to come out ahead by only needing to hire tech staff that are competent with Windows compared to the cost of staff competent with Linux. Put another way, in my IT degree program every single person in my graduating class was very competent as a Windows admin, but only a handful of us were any good with Linux (with a couple actively avoiding Linux for being different)
Convincing companies to switch to no name free software coming from Sun or Digital certainly was a big jump.
Have you ever seen any other software centered forum? It’s not different. That’s not the reason.
Only dweebs on social media fight over distros. Nobody who matters.