You would have more success convincing people if you were a little more charitable. It is very difficult to have a reasonable conversation when it starts with an insult.

That is not condescension as I am not condescending towards users. Rather, it's reality. I volunteer with an association of retired people and 100% of our executive and every single member I have ever spoken to fits in in that group. They don't do more than that because frankly, they don't particularly like their computers. I also briefly sold computers when I was in University. Over that 18 months, I'd say that 85% of people who needed my help were looking for machines that could do exactly that.

Finally, I really question what kind of Linux distrust you use. With a half decent, consumer focused distribution, I can't imagine how anything could fall to pieces the moment someone colours outside the lines.

If we're trading anecdotes about a really specific subset of users here, I know a bunch of "retired people" who also almost exclusively do email, but you know they also like things to be easy, intuitive, familiar, functional and still kind of pretty like they're actually part of the future. They absolutely can not have it break. And you know what? They do want more features that they can use, it isn't that they only want email because it is all they can use, it's just the rest is not easy/intuitive/familiar or is providing no greater value to their now limited time. What value does linux desktop bring to them? It's a liability with no advantages.

So now a bunch have started using things like amazon photos which has encouraged them to become more interested in their android devices, branching out into other fun photo apps and home IoT crap. Another bunch (quite the dividing line here) has gotten more involved in iCloud shared albums and thus again more interested in the Apple ecosystem. They went from cheap "PC" buyers to MBP because they thought the UX was that much better, because facetime and iMessage and other cool things.

Linux Desktop can't compete even in that easiest of user segments.

Totally agree with your familiarity argument. I think that's the main reason why Linux can't compete.

One can think that the desktop OS for a regular user is a commodity, so why replace it? The benefits for the regular user of using Linux are not tangible, so there's no point for them in not using what has worked for them throughout the years.

What I don't agree with, is that you make it sound like Linux "breaks" and would cause problems, and more extreme that it can not even compete.

There are lots of segments where Linux can adapt perfectly to user's need. The fact is that user's are not willing to change and don't really NEED to change. It is not because of supposed Linux short comings.

I don't think there's even an argument that it can compete when it comes to integrations with mobile, other in-home devices, and other peoples data/devices. Yeah it's an issue that there are basically two walled gardens people get into, but Linux isn't even in the neighborhood. It can certainly compete on "a web browser exists and works" but my point is people actually do want more than that.

And it does break. I mean even if the drivers and necessary software is all great, at some point something weird happens and doesn't unhappen. My Fedora install has software I downloaded in the software GUI that won't update. It sends me (garbage) messages about SELinux constantly. The toast doesn't autohide and toast pops up for too many things. It's still usable, nothing is "broken", but it's death by a thousand cuts. No one wants all this confusing crap that isn't "just working". I don't get that feeling in macOS or Windows 10.

Of course, but I think that your portrayal of the regular user is not of a regular user at all. The regular users I know don't even know what syncing is, what the cloud is, what integration is. I know lots of people that have their home computer running with the "walmart" or "samsclub" user.

Of course Linux breaks, I've seen it break in all the imaginable ways in all layers in all the distros I've used (from Gentoo stage 1 back in the day to Ubuntu). But I hardly see problems when running Ubuntu on regular hardware.

I could perfectly argue the same thing about Windows, it is a well know fact that Windows over time without expert supervision, will end up badly: full of unwanted adware, bloatware, and shitty software ruining the experience. I'm sure most of us were asked a lot of times to fix an aunts/friends PC.

I could also say the same thing about MacOS. The UI experience is completely different from Windows, personally, I hate the interface and I don't enjoy it. On the other hand, regular users are willing to put up with the difference, why? because it's a Mac! It's a beautiful industrial design product and people who are able to afford it are proud of it.

I regularly use Linux, Windows and macOS. I think nowadays they are all solid choices. And the differences stem from personal preferences. What I don't think has place nowadays is to speak in absolutes: "macOS is the superior usability experience", "Linux can not compete in even the most basic use case", "Windows is the only solution for enterprise users" we hear so often.

> Of course, but I think that your portrayal of the regular user is not of a regular user at all.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone mentions a problem with the Linux Desktop and immediately the excuse is "normal user doesn't do that".

I see what you mean. And this is the problems with this subject and why most of the times these discussions end up nowhere.

We end up discussing on what this hypothetical "regular user" does with biased examples from our own experience. The ones who really have a basic idea of what regular users do are the big players like Apple, Google and Microsoft; from all the telemetry they collect.

I'm certainly not condescending "regular users", on the contrary; I understand why a lot of people don't want to deal with technology and I defend the fact that systems should be easy to use. From your comments I think you're trying to portray us as if we think that regular users are stupid. Which is certainly not the case.

My point is that most people don't base their purchase decisions on technical grounds. Mostly because of money and sometimes status factors.

Again, all these coming from my personal experience; I haven't taken the time to search for an actual statistical study on user preferences. I know I've installed Linux on a lot of people's home/personal computer without them knowing what happened and are happy to this day.

Condescension doesn't mean you think they're stupid (though it is clear that many do), it means you look down on them, which is what it sounds like whenever anyone says "they just need this and that and they don't care about the other things". The implication being that they are not sophisticated individuals who may actually aspire to use their computer as more than a web kiosk if it wasn't treating them like a child. Many of them probably won't, and that's fine, but doesn't mean we should be designing things only for them.

> The regular users I know don't even know what syncing is, what the cloud is, what integration is.

And that's fine! That's exactly my point, this stuff should have a low barrier to entry so that all users can enjoy these great features. I think it's wrong to look at users who only know email/search and relegate them to that for eternity when they might be very happy sharing family photos through some service that Linux doesn't integrate with.

> Linux Desktop can't compete even in that easiest of user segments.

This is amusing, because I had to use a MBP for work a year ago, and I still have flashbacks of how painful it was to use in general usage. I mean, for heaven's sake, copy and paste was always, constantly broken. I'm not actually sure how you manage to break something that's been a mainstay of the computer UI for 37 years, but they managed it. And that's not to talk about the window focusing problems, and all of the other crap I experienced. Have you ever seen a (very skilled) senior developer lose all of their windows? I have. It was a regular occurrence because the MBP was unable to cope properly with a second monitor of varying sizes.

Alas, I will leave it there. /rant

I've never heard of these complaints? This sounds much more like typical Linux Desktop issues in my mind.

Though at this point Windows 10 constantly loses windows on monitors that no longer exist...sometimes even the password prompt on my work laptop lock screen ceases to exist but I found plugging it into an external monitor brings it back on the laptop monitor...

I'm not going to discount your anecdotal experience, but this is literally the first time I've ever heard of issues like that on a Mac. The only copy/paste problems I ever run in to is copy/paste from a VMWare VM to the host OS.

>Over that 18 months, I'd say that 85% of people who needed my help were looking for machines that could do exactly that.

Woudln't a Chromebook fit their use case a bit better? The chances of needing to drop to a CLI to do something basic or fix some thing that an update broke drops from low double digits to effectively zero.

If all you really need is a browser anyway, I don't know why you wouldn't use a Chromebook. That's not a knock on Linux. It's a knock on any full-blown desktop OS.

I certainly couldn't use a Chromebook as my only machine. I need other systems for working with media, games, etc. But I travel as often as not with just a Chromebook these days.

Added: Or just a tablet. My dad always considered PCs a necessary evil. He doesn't really type much and he's far happier with my old iPad than he ever was with a PC--or than he would be with a Chromebook.

"With a half decent, consumer focused distribution, I can't imagine how anything could fall to pieces the moment someone colours outside the lines."

The complaint resonates with me, and I originally used Linux circa/prior to kernel 2.2.16.

It's hard to pin down any specific issue, but I perceive consumer Linux even today as very brittle and the user-friendliness as mainly nailing "no user serviceable parts inside" covers over everything.

For example, I have an installation where basically all I ever do is start up KDE, select the start menu to open Konsole, and run something from the command line. At least once in the few weeks I've been doing this, something got completely screwed up to the point where the interface was unusable and I went to the text-mode console, logged in as root and shutdown -r now'ed. Previously, I got an installation in a completely unusable state because I had no alternative but to power-cycle it when it bogged down.

The attraction for me is the built in programming tools, the bash shell, free software, and today, the lack of advertising and tracking - when it comes to the actual OS I'm very much the stereotypical Mac user who wants it to just work. I just don't want today's Mac hardware.

I avoided Windows 10 for quite a while, but I finally upgraded a few months ago, and so far it hasn't crashed or failed me.

I think that your view on the needs of the regular user is pretty agreeable. I don't get why you got these kind of replies. Nothing you said was controversial about the regular user's needs.

I too have experience working with some non-profits and also some schools, were I've maintained their Linux desktops and the users never really complained about their experience.

Of course, you would sometimes get the usual "where's Word?", "This .exe I downloaded does not work", etc. we all know about. But regular users who complained about the desktop experience per se were not common.

I think that the main reason why Linux on the desktop has not seen major growth is because of inertia, Windows is still the standard and why change? If you buy a cheap laptop/pc at Walmart you're still getting Windows. Why would a regular user bother to change OS? Also, one has to admit that without getting in to the details, Windows 10 is a pretty decent OS.

Inertia did not stop the iPhone from completely destroying BlackBerry, and it didn't stop Android from replacing Windows as the primary internet appliance for many, many people.

Linux Desktop has had decades and the backing of large companies to fight inertia, yet hasn't succeeded. Why?

It's not groundbraking. At the time the iPhone was announced, I still used a Sony Ericsson 530i. And that was a normal mobile phone back then (nothing fancy, just normal). And although the software on the iPhone was basically just a browser (even without copy/paste, which amused me to no end), it was a browser that displayed proper HTML, not that mangled mess you got from Symbian phones.

Compare this to Linux: It started out very obscure, lagged behind in usability for years and finally managed to catch up. But now, at this point, everyone is so used to Windows (including the crap) that the general response is "meh, it's good enough". Plus, no Linux driven company will ever start a marketing campaign that comes anywhere near what Apple did back in the day.

Edit: Also, since you mentioned BB: From my perspective, they also never did usability right. Before the iPhone, Nokia was the usability king (at least in my circle of usage), but Ericsson and BB weren't that bad compared to them. That changed rapidly after capacitive touchscreens were widespread in consumer grade electronics.

Perhaps because Gnome is a crap.

> I can't imagine how anything could fall to pieces the moment someone colours outside the lines.

Try and install an application to a different disk. Or even a different directory. It can't be done in any major distribution because package managers make the assumption that you will never want to place an application anywhere but the same place the rest of the OS is, because they also make the assumption that all applications should be part of the system, because Linux has no concept of separating "system" from "application" in the first place.

I know what your response will be: "normal users don't care about that"[0], which I think illustrates my point rather well.

[0]It's also rather likely you'll go with something like "Windows applications normally don't let you do that either", which is at best a half truth but, more importantly, is a whataboutism.

I don't have issues installing eclipse on /opt/

I have bought a Giada i53 (Core i5 Mobile, 500 Go, 4 Go) for my parents in may 2013. I have installed ubuntu gnome 14.04. I live far away and performs all the administration remotely. It takes me around 5 minutes every 2 weeks (apt-get update, upgrade). I think ubuntu is perfect for old retire people who know someone who knows linux.

I don't think this is a reasonable scenario for the vast majority of people, even if you know someone who can SSH to your desktop for updates.

I'm not who you replied to but I didn't think what they wrote was in any way condescending.

The Android OS pointed out the OS didn't matter much for most tasks. Many users don't need Windows they just need an OS.

I'd even say most people are perfectly happy with a phone and an Internet connection. Complexity of any OS is a turn off for users, the OS of a phone is meant to be intuitive.

I recently retired from a small organization, 4000 users. A large chunk of those people could probably switch from Windows to Linux desktops just fine. But then the desktop support folks would have two platforms to support instead of one. Then would their linux client software give them all the same functionality they are getting from outlook, skype and exchange? I have no idea, but I'm guessing the savings would have to be substantial for anybody to even start investigating this.

So Google is condesneding to it's users? Because guess what a chrome book is! It's even worse actually - and trumpets please - they are now improving linux support on chromebooks.

The reason no linux distro has taken off is because even at free it's not cost effective for a hardware manufacturer to install it. Windows, when purchased in bulk as an OEM install is like a whopping $10 - but comes with all the 1st class driver support from manufacturers and software support from software vendors. So, if you are HP and need to support some umpteen million devices sold this year, you push Windows out the door, not Linux. This is also why Apple doesn't allow it's OS sold seperately anymore and try to tie it down to the hardware as much as possible - if they don't sell the hardware they really don't care if you paid them money for the OS. The OS was cheap to build (relatively speaking).

Until someone comes up with a better piece of hardware for running linux, then Mac and HP, Dell, etc, etc will maintain their dominance.

Dell have computers with Ubuntu pre-installed.

and they don't refund you the windows license fee. So yes, they did the install as a convenience for you, but there is no real focus on linux.

Every time I've put a Linux distribution to very inexperienced users, it worked well, there's a lot of UI things which tend to work better on Linux compared to Windows.

I think the main thing is there's no real point to switch so no one does.

The lightweight window managers seem to do the least of this imagined user problem.