kittenzrulz123

Of course, one is a ceo and the other are peasants

Same :3

Thats the fundamental problem ive been trying to get at, people fundamentally view Linux incorrectly. Linux is not a Windows competitor (at least directly) and I think thats a good thing. Linux will never run all windows software because its not Windows, that doesn't mean its not ready. Linux will never function exactly like Windows and thats imo an amazing thing (and for those people who want their system to work like Windows they have Windows).

Linux should embrace the things that make it stand out and not try to copy other operating systems, that doesn't make it non-user friendly. For example I love tiling, I love that Cosmic has embraced tiling, however keyboard based tiling is not naturally intuitive to Windows users. In addition I would argue that you arent forced to use the terminal, however the terminal is so powerful that its hard to ignore it. That doesn't mean Linux GUI apps are weak, it simply means Linux TTY/TUI software is extremely powerful.

Heres the thing, I think to a certain degree Linux is a benefit for humanity. However we need to be honest about what it is and what it is not. I think naturally rather than convincing people to switch with lies or deceit we should instead focus on strengthening the community we already have. We need more people contributing to wikis, more people on forums answeing questions, and more people in IRC/Matrix chats to help people.

My final point is this, Linux (as much as I love it) fundamentally cannot challenge Microsoft in any meaningful way. OEMs simply have no reason to switch (and in many cases Microsoft has pressured OEMs to continue using windows in an illegal manner). My point is for us thats ok, Linux right now is arguably not in a bad place. Sure there are issues with legacy apps and wayland but we are slowly progressing and with the release of Cosmic I belive Linux is progressing in a distinct manner.

Theres a fundamental difference between installing an operating system and immigration. That difference is the value of human life. Once again Linux is not a corporate product, there is no commercial benefit in mass adoption. Furthermore the people who contribute are for the most part technical users. Using your example the fact is nearly every country gives citizenship to skilled workers far faster and for a very good reason.

Because objectively mass adoption for Linux isnt a good thing. We have no reason to lie or decive people, Linux simply is not for eveyone. Every single time someone asks me "I love Windows/MacOS, if I switch to Linux will it basically be the same thing?" I say absolutely not. If someone wants Windows/MacOS (as most people do) then they should just use Windows/MacOS. Mass adoption would also require fundamentally changing the character of Linux, however even that would not be enough. The question then becomes do we wish to appeal to people who are happy not using Linux and when they do install Linux they generally become unhappy. When nontechnical people install Linux they generally complain however they do not, contribute, they do not donate, and they do not offer anything beyond complaints. When something isnt exactly like Windows/MacOS they call it "not user friendly", when 0.0001% of apps arent compatible they say "Linux isn't ready", and when any advanced power features are baked in they demand it be dumbed down for them.

Once again how would more (specifically nontechnical) people using Linux beneficial in any way?

Yes because we're not a religion, conversion rates as a measurement of Linux success is silly

People will disagree and downvote but objectively you are correct. Who makes the software for linux? Who maintains distributions? Who contributes to OSS? Who donates to OSS software? Who maintains distro wikis? And when these people do it they make it with whom in mind? The answer is simple, its power users who make it primarily with power users in mind. Thats why Linux has more maintainers, more contributors, and more software engineers, than professional software/UX designers (call it a bad thing but thats what it is)

Why, no really tell me why we need to embrace nontechnical Linux users? What exactly does Linux have to gain? Because afaik nontechnical users dont donate, don't contribute, and dont even appreciate the software or the work maintainers put into it (and they complain far more often). Theres always "x feature doesnt work" or "y app isn't compatible" and suddenly "Linux isn't ready yet".

Except thats not even true because Linux has absolutely no market, there is no money in mass adoption

Uhh you mean the only correct text editor (vim) /s /lh

I use fish, also I dont need to remember every CLI command just the ones I use

I dont understand, why do we want Linux to go mainstream? Eveyone constantly says it yet nobody has an answer. In order to become mainstream it would need to be so dumbed down that people like me would stop using it.