Stumbled across this quick post recently and thought it was a really good tale and worth sharing.
A couple of weeks ago, I saw a tweet asking: "If Linux is so good, why aren't more people using it?" And it's a fair question! It intuitively rings true until you give it a moment's consideration. Linux is even free, so what's stopping mass adoption, if it's actually better? My response:
- If exercising is so healthy, why don't more people do it?
- If reading is so educational, why don't more people do it?
- If junk food is so bad for you, why do so many people eat it?
The world is full of free invitations to self-improvement that are ignored by most people most of the time. Putting it crudely, it's easier to be fat and ignorant in a world of cheap, empty calories than it is to be fit and informed. It's hard to resist the temptation of minimal effort.
And Linux isn't minimal effort. It's an operating system that demands more of you than does the commercial offerings from Microsoft and Apple. Thus, it serves as a dojo for understanding computers better. With a sensei who keeps demanding you figure problems out on your own in order to learn and level up.
Now I totally understand why most computer users aren't interested in an intellectual workout when all they want to do is browse the web or use an app. They're not looking to become a black belt in computing fundamentals.
But programmers are different. Or ought to be different. They're like firefighters. Fitness isn't the purpose of firefighting, but a prerequisite. You're a better firefighter when you have the stamina and strength to carry people out of a burning building on your shoulders than if you do not. So most firefighters work to be fit in order to serve that mission.
That's why I'd love to see more developers take another look at Linux. Such that they may develop better proficiency in the basic katas of the internet. Such that they aren't scared to connect a computer to the internet without the cover of a cloud.
Besides, if you're able to figure out how to setup a modern build pipeline for JavaScript or even correctly configure IAM for AWS, you already have all the stamina you need for the Linux journey. Think about giving it another try. Not because it is easy, but because it is worth it.
Worst take ever. Outside of Desktop, Windows gets dominated by Linux. Even on Azure, Linux is the number one OS over MS's Windows Server. Windows is free on IoT and still Linux dominates. So what makes Desktop different? 30 years of Microsoft's vendor lock-in strategy. All the OEMs have to invest into Windows because they have to take the volume licensing deal from Microsoft or be priced out. This ensures Windows engineering efforts for drivers, software, and testing. Because the machines were Windows, 3rd party hardware and software had to invest into Windows as well. When there is no vendor lock-in, Linux receives the money for engineering efforts and dominates Windows. Nobody complains about having Linux on their Smart TV. Right, because the money for engineering efforts are not forced to be put toward Windows. How many people are switching their Steam Deck to Windows 80%? 50%? 10%? 1%,? more like ~0.1% switch. The money is there to make a great experience and so there is almost no reason to switch. It's only the tech nerds that are installing OSes. Average people don't even know what Windows or Linux is. When Microsoft loses it's lock-in strategy, Linux will take over. Nobody is choosing Windows for Desktop. It's just what comes on the machine at the store.
I worry that for 3rd parties to put forth any effort, there needs to be incentives... which would be in the form of demand... which isn't there yet because they don't put any effort into it.
MS is playing a dangerous game (for them). If they turn the screws on users hard enough then Linux might gain enough market share for there to be real demand. I'm trying to get people to switch but the lack of third party support makes it a minefield sometimes.
I mean this is it. That's why Microsoft's vendor lock-in strategy has kept Windows dominant on Desktop. It guarantees money will be spent on Windows first and foremost for all these OEMs. Which guarantees 3rd party support.
Regular users wont switch to Linux until the machine comes preinstalled with Linux. Microsoft can screw over their customers and the average user will just have to take it. The average users just doesn't know any better. Ultimately, average users need to see a machine they want to buy in a brick and mortar store. As long as Microsoft's vendor lock-in strategy is in affect, the average user will never see a Linux machine, from your typical OEM, even to unknowingly consider. But, if Valve releases a Steam Console, they could put that machine in a brick and mortar store. Lots of regular average users would buy it for the gaming, not realizing it's Linux. Eventually they would learn they could use the desktop mode in a pinch (same as what happened with the Steam Deck). When they realize the desktop mode works just as well as their PC, likely, they will stop buying a PC altogether. It will be like when PlayStation sold their PS2. Lots of people just bought a PS2 because it came with a DVD player. DVD player sales declined rapidly. If something similar happens with a Steam Console, Linux would have a market share 3rd party developers could not ignore. I don't know if that would break Microsoft's vendor lock-in strategy, but I think 10M - 20M Steam Consoles sold every year would definitely get the attention of 3rd party hardware vendors and software vendors for at least the gaming market. And all that would be supported on desktop Linux too; making it even easier for the tech nerds to switch. Then you are just waiting on the network affect to take off.
We will have to see, what unfolds in the next couple years.
The incentive for consumer Linux is controlling the app store.
Google leverages its control of the app store to make money on Android. Valve has invested in Linux in order to have an alternate OS in case Windows becomes hostile.