>I switched to Linux full time before Compiz took off and did so for exactly the reasons you cited the other platforms were superior: Linux was more stable, easier to reason with (as it was doing less magic behind the scenes), components worked better with each other since POSIX is designed for interoperability.

Good for you that you had this experience but this is the standard talking point I have been hearing for 15 years. Yes if you are willing to put in the work Linux is more powerful than a closed source OS. However you forget that the primary job of the OS is to provide a stable platform to enable you to run applications. Instead you are ignoring this and praising other aspects of the OS that do not directly correlate to improvements for regular non IT end users. If I do not want to spend time fixing a broken config caused but a bug, I am out of luck. If I do not want to deal with poorly made system utilities that do not correlate to what the config files do then I am out of luck. If I want different components of the OS to have a unified design language so they work together I am out of luck(ex. Even today GNOME bundles a bunch of old garbage tools and expect them to be equivalent to their Windows/Mac counterparts, no thought is put into the usability and uniformity of these tools).

> Good for you that you had this experience but this is the standard talking point I have been hearing for 15 years.

Which is entirely anecdotal.

I’ve done a considerable amount of research on this topic over the last 20 years and for the at least 10 years of it the actual main reason Windows users don’t like Linux is simply because it’s not like Windows. It doesn’t matter how much better Linux might be or how crappy Windows might get, if people are comfortable in one thing then they generally don’t like switching to another thing that behaves differently. And Linux behaves very differently.

This is the reason Microsoft practically gives Microsoft products away at schools. Get them comfortable at a young age and most of them will stick with you for life.

Just look at how successful Android, ChromeOS, Linux netbooks (before Microsoft subsidised XP on them) are/were. If a compelling platform comes with Linux pre-installed people manage just fine. But if you ask them to take a Windows machine, wipe it and install something alien the of course a lot of people with struggle. It’s no different to how few people install 3rd party firmware on smart TVs, routers or other consumer devices.

But I’m fine with that. I used to get wound up with tactics like MS subsidies 20 years ago but these days I’m very much more live and let live. As long as people don’t impose their preferences on me, I won’t be an arse about my preferences to them. Just don’t try to fob me off with pseudo-technical rubbish when it’s clearly just a subjective bias.

> Yes if you are willing to put in the work Linux is more powerful than a closed source OS.

Open source is only part of the equation. It’s that the whole OS is modular and easy to interface with. Whether it’s CLI components, common APIs or even just hot swappable services like desktop managers.

Windows has elements of this too but frankly Linux just does it better. And I say this as someone who use to author a competitor to Windows Blinds. I’ve done my fair amount of low level hacking on Windows, I’d even go as far as to say that Win32 APIs are fun. But Linux is just easier to mould into whatever vision you have. But that’s not a criticism of Windows, Windows caters for a different audience.

And it honestly doesn’t take any more effort to learn Linux than Windows. People just get a head start with Windows given that’s what you grow up with. However having taught computer literacy to old people, I can tell you that Windows can be just as alien if you haven’t already had that head start. Equally my wife has bought Linux laptops before (because they were cheap) and had zero issues with them. So the stories of Linux being anti-user are far overblown.

> However you forget that the primary job of the OS is to provide a stable platform to enable you to run applications.

I haven’t forgotten that. You just wrongly assume that only Windows can do that.

> Instead you are ignoring this and praising other aspects of the OS that do not directly correlate to improvements for regular non IT end users.

I did actually give examples. :) eg Linux being easier to install because there’s no googling around to find the correct drivers. They just get picked up by default from your install media.

Admittedly Windows has improved vastly in that area too but I think Microsoft had to borrow a lot of ideas from Apple and Linux to get there.

> If I do not want to spend time fixing a broken config caused but a bug, I am out of luck. If I do not want to deal with poorly made system utilities that do not correlate to what the config files do then I am out of luck.

That’s just as big a problem on Windows and macOS as it is any other operating system, Linux includes. Software breaks on any platform. Heck, I’ve had far more instances of Windows Server failing after a broken update than I have on Linux despite running 2 orders of magnitude more Linux servers. And we are talking severs! Never mind all the junk that slows desktop Windows down from a thousand different independent update managers to printer bloatware that isn’t an issue on Linux. And Windows itself isn’t exactly big free itself either.

> If I want different components of the OS to have a unified design language so they work together I am out of luck(ex. Even today GNOME bundles a bunch of old garbage tools and expect them to be equivalent to their Windows/Mac counterparts, no thought is put into the usability and uniformity of these tools).

That’s not really a fair comment when Windows has multiple different control panels (has the Font applet even been updated from Win 3.x yet?) that were designed for entirely different desktop paradigms. Each with slightly different functionality and thus finding the right option usually requires clicking around a dozen hyperlinks in different applications for 10 minutes until, by chance, you happen upon the right applet.

Honestly mate, I’ve got nothing against other peoples preferences. Maybe you should relax your outlook on others too. Or at least stop pretending your preferences are technical in nature because for the vast majority of peoples that’s really not the case. For most people, it’s far more down to familiarity than it is down to which platform is objectively better (not that a vague term like “better” can ever be an objective metric anyway)

Here we go...down the same rabbit hole that these Linux vs whatever else conversations always go down.

Just to reiterate: Every OS has problems but in MY experience Linux has broken on me in fundamental ways. MY experience is that Linux cannot be trusted for day to day usage even though I have been giving it chances for 15 years now. I'm glad that you have the fortune of having a better experience but I am not going to ignore what I have experienced with the OS just because you said it was good.

I'm not going to waste my time with this anymore so I bid you good day.

> Here we go...down the same rabbit hole that these Linux vs whatever else conversations always go down.

At risk of sounding like a school child: you literally started it.

My point was initially just to say that other people get on fine with Linux. Then you took us down the rabbit hole conflating preference with technical fact.

> Just to reiterate: Every OS has problems but…

Exactly my point. You try to sound impartial but then drift into anecdote and bias. Like what you like, I’m really not here to argue you into using another operating system.

> I am not going to ignore what I have experienced with the OS just because you said it was good.

I feel like I’ve said this a dozen times already…but: I’m all for people having preferences and I’d never dare try to change someone’s opinion. But you’re conflating preference as technical fact. Maybe you should relax a little and appreciate other peoples preferences too instead of assuming you’re right :)

If you read back what I’ve posted you’ll see I’m not here to argue with you that you’re experiences don’t matter to you. I’m just saying it’s all subjective.

Having done as much research as I have on this topic over the years (had to for work) it’s funny how much of what we believe is fact is actually just down to preferences and those preferences are usually just down to comfort (like an old friend) rather than technical capabilities.

But I’ll happily end the topic here if that’s you’re desire. :)

> At risk of sounding like a school child: you literally started it.

No. When someone relates their negative experience with an OS you happen to use, that is not a personal attack or invitation to expound upon your own contradictory experience. This happens every single time anyone ever says anything even remotely negative about the Linux Desktop. Can you honestly say the same happens with anywhere near the same frequency when discussing Windows or MacOS problems?

> No. When someone relates their negative experience with an OS you happen to use, that is not a personal attack

What personal attacks are these? All I’ve seen thus far are adults having a mature conversation.

> or invitation to expound upon your own contradictory experience

That’s literally the point of social platforms. You cannot post an opinion on a public forum and then declare that other people are forbidden to rely. If that’s your bag then you’re better off writing your thoughts and then popping them in a glass bottle and casting that out to sea :P

> Can you honestly say the same happens with anywhere near the same frequency when discussing Windows or MacOS problems?

Yes. Happens all the time and on any topic. This is a message board, opinions will differ and people will want to discuss them. I don’t see what the issue is there (as long as it’s civil).

Eg this started out a positive thread talking about Linux composing managers and there wasn’t any need for anyone to start arguing about how much better Windows was but that happened. And I’m fine with that. Weird you should think I’m not allowed to reply when that does happen though.

Anyway, this has gotten meta and in my experience that’s usually the point when the quality of conversations deteriorate so I’ll duck out of the chat now :)

> this started out a positive thread talking about Linux composing managers and there wasn’t any need for anyone to start arguing about how much better Windows was but that happened.

That isn't what happened, this is my point about taking things personally. Let's look at what was actually said:

> Compiz was great at drawing curious people in but I'd argue that Compiz helped many people write off Linux.

After which that opinion was elaborated to say that despite the attraction of the window effects, Linux's issues during the time period in question drove people away and left them with the impression that Linux was all gimmick that couldn't hold up to serious use.

Your response to this was:

> I switched to Linux full time before Compiz took off and did so for exactly the reasons you cited the other platforms were superior: Linux was more stable, easier to reason with (as it was doing less magic behind the scenes), components worked better with each other since POSIX is designed for interoperability.

Which, at least to me and apparently nebula, sounded a lot like the "no, Linux is great actually" defensive anecdote you see every time anyone says anything negative about Linux. Worse, you didn't even engage with what was being said, only saying that you had a great experience. What does that have to do with the argument presented?

> That’s literally the point of social platforms. You cannot post an opinion on a public forum and then declare that other people are forbidden to rely.

There are useful replies and then there's tired old defensive performative argumentation. I'm arguing that 'I had a good time with Linux' in the context of what was posted is much more the latter than the former. I might be a touch too sensitive to this sort of thing after hearing it out of Linux Desktop evangelists for 20 goddamned years, though.

> Yes. Happens all the time and on any topic. [...] Eg this started out a positive thread talking about Linux composing managers and there wasn’t any need for anyone to start arguing about how much better Windows was but that happened.

Take a look back at the original nebula post and you will see that he only ever mentioned Windows negatively.

I think you are missing the most important point laumars made that is somewhat relevant:

> I’ve done a considerable amount of research on this topic over the last 20 years and for the at least 10 years of it the actual main reason Windows users don’t like Linux is simply because it’s not like Windows. It doesn’t matter how much better Linux might be or how crappy Windows might get, if people are comfortable in one thing then they generally don’t like switching to another thing that behaves differently. And Linux behaves very differently.

Now, I am curious if that research is public anywhere? That's been my gut feel for the last 20 years too, but I've never had any data to prove it either way (provided the methodology for that research stands to scrutiny).

Now back to the point, I agree that Compiz contributed to both attracting and pushing people away from Linux. It exacerbated any stability issues in the graphics drivers, but at the same time, there was a huge presence of all the Compiz-stuff around. I similarly already used Linux (since '98) for stability and hackability on the desktop, and I had no interest in Compiz because of the fragility.

Still, it's obvious from the discussion here that there were people who were both pulled in and pushed out due to Compiz situation. As nebula says themselves, it hasn't really pushed them out, but instead it's the continuing troubles they experience with every yearly attempt to switch to Linux (and sure, their choice of hardware may contribute to it: I've had better experience with Thinkpads than even with Dell XPS 13 preloaded with Ubuntu). Basically, just like you get a very specific model if you want to run Hackintosh, you should look for computer models with decent support to run GNU/Linux on (it's just that there are many more models to choose from that would run great OOB): and don't trust the certification, because that doesn't cover all the things a consumer might care about.

I know I said wouldn’t reply (and frankly this meta debate is every bit as worthless as I predicted it would be) but I feel I should point out that you haven’t traced the thread back up to the OP when conducting your analysis. You need to hit ‘parent’ on the post that you thought was top. Might need to do that a couple times in fact. That should add the context I was describing which you couldn’t see. :)

The flagged parent didn't mention Windows at all. In fact, the only comparison made was to MacOS.

That’s still not the OP and you’re misreading my posts again because I didn’t say the OP mentioned Windows, I said they discussed Linux and had replies mention Windows (that OSX comment just being one of many replies).

But don’t bother looking it up. I’m done chatting to you after the last barrage of personal attacks you’ve made in the other thread. There’s only so many times you can post offensive remarks and miscomprehend the conversation while others are being polite and patient before their patients eventually wears out.

You gave no examples supporting your claims, though. What was your experience? What has broken on you in fundamental ways? When was that? What distribution were you using? Anecdotally, there is no shortage of examples of people formatting their windows installation which would corroborate to the idea that windows is not safe from fundamentally breaking on you.

I have given examples in another thread here [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798725

> I’ve done a considerable amount of research on this topic over the last 20 years and for the at least 10 years of it the actual main reason Windows users don’t like Linux is simply because it’s not like Windows. It doesn’t matter how much better Linux might be or how crappy Windows might get, if people are comfortable in one thing then they generally don’t like switching to another thing that behaves differently. And Linux behaves very differently.

There is a difference between just liking the way things behave because you're comfortable with it and preferring the way it behaves because it is better.

To this day there is a good chance that if I want to run the latest version of any piece of Linux software I will have to compile it from source like it's the 1970s in order to do so. That is a problem that Windows and MacOS have never had, and the Linux Desktop community has been very slow and reluctant to do anything about.

Hell, even today as Flatpak beings to emerge as the dominant cross-distro application packaging format, it is still lacking basic features of 1980s Desktop software management and gets a lot of flak from the community for existing at all.

> There is a difference between just liking the way things behave because you're comfortable with it and preferring the way it behaves because it is better.

indeed there is. However the vast majority of people fall into the former category while assuming theyre the latter category.

Or to put it another way, everyone cannot be right that their preference is technically superior. Ergo our preferences must be subjective.

> To this day there is a good chance that if I want to run the latest version of any piece of Linux software I will have to compile it from source like it's the 1970s in order to do so. That is a problem that Windows and MacOS have never had, and the Linux Desktop community has been very slow and reluctant to do anything about.

That’s a huuuuge generalisation there. The truth is it depends on the Linux distribution (Arch and Fedora are bleeding edge, Debian and CentOS are not) what repos you have enabled (stable, testing, etc) and even what software you’re running. Eg some niche cross platform thing on GitHub might require compiling for all OSs never mind just Linux.

Linux will see more regular platform updates than Windows and macOS where you’re limited to service packs and new OS releases. You also don’t have to wait until “patch Thursday” for patches on Linux. They get released as soon as they’ve passed build and test pipelines.

So there are definitely plenty of examples where the generalisation is a way off. But for the sake of impartiality I do agree that some niche software and some distros will make you compile from source. However its definitely not the norm for common software and hasn’t been for 20 years.

> Hell, even today as Flatpak beings to emerge as the dominant cross-distro application packaging format, it is still lacking basic features of 1980s Desktop software distribution and gets a lot of flak from the community for existing at all.

Yeah cross platform package management is broken in Linux. Snap, flatpak, etc. all have problems. Personally I think the real issue is that Linux is trying to emulate Windows and Mac with portable installers. If you want a platform where the responsibility is on the user to download and install applications manually then there are already mature options available for that (Windows and macOS). So there’s no point trying to compete there. Where Linux excels is with its package management taking the risk of application installation away from the operator.

This won’t be to everyone’s preference but that’s fine because not every platform should behave the same. Just because a specific paradigm makes sense for one platform doesn’t mean it makes sense for every platform.

Just look at how fundamentally different remote management on Windows vs Linux is. Windows is based around RPCs while Linux is based around scripting. Neither is wrong or right. Both work effectively despite being completely different approaches.

And here lies the problem with people who say one is better than another: they look at the differences and say “I don’t like it” but think it’s a technical decision when in fact it’s just an emotive response based on what they’re comfort zone is.

> indeed there is. However the vast majority of people fall into the former category while assuming theyre the latter category.

That sounds arrogant and condescending. In order for that to be true you would have to presume that any given behavior was objectively better, and therefore anyone who prefers different behavior only does so because they are comfortable with the 'wrong' behavior.

> That’s a huuuuge generalisation there. The truth is it depends on the Linux distribution

No, it doesn't, and I'm really tired of hearing "you chose the wrong distro, bro" for literally every distro because none of them actually do what I, and many others, want. Why is it considered so insane to want a stable base system and be able to install applications of any level of bleeding-edgeness on top of it without jumping through a bunch of hoops?

> Linux will see more regular platform updates than Windows and macOS where you’re limited to service packs and new OS releases.

You clearly haven't kept in touch with Windows through the Windows 10 era.

> Yeah cross platform package management is broken in Linux. Snap, flatpak, etc. all have problems. Personally I think the real issue is that Linux is trying to emulate Windows and Mac with portable installers. If you want a platform where the responsibility is on the user to download and install applications manually then there are already mature options available for that (Windows and macOS). So there’s no point trying to compete there. Where Linux excels is with its package management taking the risk of application installation away from the operator.

I disagree with literally every statement in here except the first two sentences. There is no reason one cannot have "portable" applications that are also managed with a store or package manager! It just means that you don't actually have to and you don't need an army of unpaid volunteers to repackage shit constantly. And Linux, in my experience, doesn't excel at taking the risk away as I have seen updates break other package's dependencies plenty of times.

We're getting off in the weeds. My original point, I think, stands: Linux doesn't behave the way I think is best, therefore it isn't 'comfort' that makes me not like the way it behaves, it's my preference for a different --better in my reasoned opinion-- behavior.

> This won’t be to everyone’s preference but that’s fine because not every platform should behave the same.

If this is truly your opinion then you have phrased your initial assertion in a very poor and condescending sounding way. You very much make it sound like "people who don't like the way Linux behaves are just idiots who can't learn new things".

> And here lies the problem with people who say one is better than another: they look at the differences and say “I don’t like it” but think it’s a technical decision when in fact it’s just an emotive response based on what they’re comfort zone is.

Oh, I see, it's because you actually did think they're just idiots.

> That sounds arrogant and condescending. In order for that to be true you would have to presume that any given behavior was objectively better, and therefore the anyone who prefers different behavior only does so because they are comfortable with the 'wrong' behavior.

That’s the literal opposite of what I said. I was saying what’s “right” is often subjective and people (ie not just technical users but non-technical users too) often (ie not always but in a great many cases) chose what’s right based on what is familiar or comfortable.

That’s basic human psychology. There’s a number of published papers that demonstrate this exact phenomenon.

> > That’s a huuuuge generalisation there. The truth is it depends on the Linux distribution

> No, it doesn't

Of course it does. A bleeding edge distro is going to have packages mainlined sooner than a conservative enterprise distro. This isn’t some shocking news, it’s Linux 101.

The whole point of distributions is they are different distribution of packages on Linux. So it should be pretty obvious that some will ship different packages to others.

> and I'm really tired of hearing "you chose the wrong distro, bro" for literally every distro because none of them actually do what I, and many others, want

I didn’t actually say you chose the wrong distro though. I said the age of packages depends on a number of factors including what distro you use (but not limited to).

The second part of your statement reaffirms my point about how there’s not right or wrong with preference. Linux doesn’t do what you want it to do your preferences lay else where. You’re even admitting there that others have told you that you’re trying to bend Linux into behaving in a way that distro wasn’t designed to. Thus that’s a preference you’re demonstrating and not a statement of something being technically superior nor inferior.

> Why is it considered so insane to want a stable base system and be able to install applications of any level of bleeding-edgeness on top of it without jumping through a bunch of hoops?

It’s not insane and there are platforms out there that manage that better than others. However it’s pointless me listing them because there are a myriad of other reasons you don’t like Linux too.

> And Linux, in my experience, doesn't excel at taking the risk away as I have seen updates break other package's dependencies plenty of times

No software is infallible but package managers are robust and have been for at least 15 years. The only times I’ve seen a package manager go tits up is when I’ve intentionally overridden it’s default behaviour and then forced it to proceed regardless. Basically knowingly forced it to break. I’ve had Linux (and FreeBSD too) running for years, constantly upgrading it from the package manager without a single issue. So I don’t doubt you’ve ran into issues but with package management on Linux, after all you seem to find all the problems on Linux, but generally it does work well for most people.

The same is true for Windows. If you’re competent then you can run a stable Windows install for years without any issues. And equally on Windows people might bork the system installing the wrong software. Such as accidentally installing a dodgy copy of Firefox from a spoofing website.

This doesn’t mean manually installing software is worse - I’m just exampling where package management tools do help. Microsoft would agree too since they provide a number of tools for pushing software out in an automated way.

> You clearly haven't kept in touch with Windows through the Windows 10 era

I don’t see why you make that statement when Windows 10 still proves my point: updates happening slower and less frequently than on Linux.

That’s not a bad thing though. It’s just a different operating model.

> We're getting off in the weeds. My original point, I think, stands: Linux doesn't behave the way I think is best, therefore it isn't 'comfort' that makes me not like the way it behaves, it's my preference for a different --better in my reasoned opinion-- behavior.

“Better” in your context is subjective to your preference though. Which is the point you keep missing. And if the term is subjective then it cannot be argued as technically superior.

Then there’s the question of why do you subjectively prefer the platform that you’re already familiar and comfortable with rather than this other platform that feels alien to you. Could it perhaps be because it’s familiar?

> If this is truly your opinion then you have phrased your initial assertion in a very poor and condescending sounding way.

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones:

> You very much make it sound like "people who don't like the way Linux behaves are just idiots who can't learn new things".

> Oh, I see, it's because you actually did think they're just idiots.

We don’t have to agree on everything but the ridiculously hostile way you’re twisting my post makes it hard to have a sensible conversation with you.

> And here lies the problem with people who say one is better than another: they look at the differences and say “I don’t like it” but think it’s a technical decision when in fact it’s just an emotive response based on what they’re comfort zone is.

Give me a way to interpret this other than condescension. You're saying that people who espouse a preference are not doing so based on valid reasoning, and the only evidence you have offered for this is that you have a different preference.

I agree that 'better' is subjective, I don't think I ever said otherwise.

You don't give people the benefit of the doubt that when they say the prefer some behavior over other behavior that they have legitimate reasoning behind it. That's arrogant nonsense entirely deserving of the stereotype that IT people are arrogant, and I for one am sick of people acting like this in our industry.

You’re literally the only one who’s been name calling and insulting people. You keep making wildly inaccurate technical claims that even a beginner in Linux would know better then admit that others have pointed out to you how deeply ignorant you are on this subject. And at no point agreed your opinions were subjective, repeatedly stating they were based on technical merit and even going as far as accusing me of thinking people were “idiots” for being subjective.

…and now that you finally grasp enough comprehension skills that you’re not making wild presumptions and insulting interpretations of my posts, now you accuse me of being arrogant and the “stereotypical problem with people in IT” in your very same post that’s agreeing with the entire point that sparked all the initial venom? Even now you cannot bring yourself to be polite with other people and instead insult them while simultaneously agreeing with them.

We’ve chatted a few times before and each and every time you’ve failed miserably at even the most basic comprehension while repeatedly making aggressive and insulting remarks. On one occasion even berating me with the same point I’d literally made the post before. And Ive seen you do this to other people too. So I’ve been more patient in this conversation than you deserve. There’s one tangent where you can’t even follow the thread and keep referring back to the wrong parent while making a big hoohar about how everyone else has misunderstood the conversation.

Maybe the reason everyone in IT always disagrees with you and comes across a certain way is because you are the one being an illiterate ass to them? Communication is a two way street and I don’t have this issue with literally anyone else on HN apart from yourself. And after this experience of insanity I’ll certainly make sure I don’t bother to engage with you again too.

You know what? You're right, I have been a little more insulting here than need be and I apologize for that. Twenty years of the same arguments from Linux Desktop's die-hard fanboys has made me a bit unkind to people I interpret to be Linux Desktop evangelists.

However, I submit that your language is not as clear as you might think it is. I am still not sure if you're trying to say that most people prefer certain behaviors purely out of comfort, or if you're agreeing with me that there is a good chance they prefer behaviors for legitimately technical reasons that just happen to be subjective. Your initial post on the subject very much strikes me as the former, and frankly so do nearly all your posts after that, yet you seem to insist that I am misunderstanding.

Nah. I am not the only one who used both and ended up using only windows.

Because, it was less work to use windows. I like programming, I even like configuring, but I want to do them when I want and not because I need to do something third and computer is failing.

Calm down... Let's not turn this thread into an ugly flamewar.

I am calm. What in my post suggested otherwise?