IMO the biggest problem is simply that not enough devices are sold with it.
The amount of people who want to/can be arsed to/even know they can install an OS on their PC is pretty small. And even then, most that can will just stick to what they know (this is obviously part of the mindset issue that you speak of).
If mainstream devices were sold with Linux on them, it would get over that hurdle, and also get over the daunting hurdle of "ok I want to switch to Linux, what's a good distro?" hurdle, to which people online will say everything from Debian to fucking Arch Linux.
Chromebooks (bastardised though they may be) and the Steam Deck prove that Linux isn't unviable. People just won't install it of their own volition.
And even then, most that can will just stick to what they know (this is obviously part of the mindset issue that you speak of).
It's the change. People hate change, in general, not just in IT.
IT workers are used to frequent changes and they usually adapt quickly, so it's not such a huge problem for them. But, most people aren't used to change, they like things pretty much static.
If mainstream devices were sold with Linux on them, it would get over that hurdle, and also get over the daunting hurdle of "ok I want to switch to Linux, what's a good distro?" hurdle, to which people online will say everything from Debian to fucking Arch Linux.
I've seen people recommend Arch for a beginner, that's a terrible choice... it will drive potential users away. I usually recommend Mint for beginners, LMDE mostly nowadays, ince Ubuntu isn't what it used to be and that will most probably leave a skewed picture to the user of what Linux is. Yes, there are tools that make things easier, but under the hood there is no UI, it's all commands. You wanna jump in, go right ahed. You don't feel OK with that, that's fine as well, use whatever GUI tools you like, LMDE has plenty of them.
Chromebooks and the Steam Deck prove that Linux isn't unviable. People just won't install it of their own volition.
Yep, pretty much the truth. This basically means that if, oh let's say, Debian cut a deal with some laptop/PC manufacturers, Linux could actually be used by many users.
And even then, most that can will just stick to what they know (this is obviously part of the mindset issue that you speak of).
It's the change. People hate change, in general, not just in IT.
IT workers are used to frequent changes and they usually adapt quickly, so it's not such a huge problem for them. But, most people aren't used to change, they like things pretty much static.
If mainstream devices were sold with Linux on them, it would get over that hurdle, and also get over the daunting hurdle of "ok I want to switch to Linux, what's a good distro?" hurdle, to which people online will say everything from Debian to fucking Arch Linux.
I've seen people recommend Arch for a beginner, that's a terrible choice... it will drive potential users away. I usually recommend Mint for beginners, LMDE mostly nowadays, since Ubuntu isn't what it used to be and that will most probably leave a skewed picture to the user of what Linux is. Yes, there are tools that make things easier, but under the hood there is no UI, it's all commands. You wanna jump in, go right ahed. You don't feel OK with that, that's fine as well, use whatever GUI tools you like, LMDE has plenty of them.
Chromebooks and the Steam Deck prove that Linux isn't unviable. People just won't install it of their own volition.
Yep, pretty much the truth. This basically means that if, oh let's say, Debian cut a deal with some laptop/PC manufacturers, Linux could actually be used by many users.
From personal experience working in a Microsoft ecosystem, it's mostly a matter of being able to hire the right people.
There is a near-infinite source of IT workers that have some expertise with Microsoft software and services. And those kinds of numbers simply don't exist for the Linux world, especially with all the different configurations out there.
Medium-sized organizations have to employ a strategy of throwing enough idiots at a problem in order to keep things running. This also creates some of the issues they need the idiots for because no one has detailed knowledge of how things work.
My attempts at proposing a linux-based application server have been met with all sorts of "but our domain policy", "we can't guarantee continuity", "none of my people know how to admin this stuff" type responses.
It definitely is a matter of mindset, but there is also a big commitment to make if switching systems to Linux. And that is a choice managers will only make if the benefits are clearly illustrated in a businesscase.
Medium-sized organizations have to employ a strategy of throwing enough idiots at a problem in order to keep things running.
Lol 🤣, that's one way to say it 😂.
And I meant more as in computers for personal use. I completely get why most things are MS centered in the workplace, and that's fine. If the workflow requires it, there is nothing wrong with that.
It’s pretty easy for me to use Linux at work thanks to VMs. But if you want to also avoid using windows or all the other Microsoft 365 stuff, that’s more difficult.
I gotta be honest, Microsoft did a great job with the UX of their 365 ecosystem. It's great as a user, but as an administrator or small business it is a nightmare.
But in a large corpo setting, it works really well.
The wider Linux community could learn a lot from it.
I don't know, I think UX has vastly improved since I started using it in 2008 and is still improving every year. It's just all these cloud and communication features we're behind on.
It would be cool to have something P2P, like Syncthing and Tox, integrated into all mainstream distros for sync and communacation Then you have some sort of a single sign-on that connects you to all your devices and people you want to communicate with. Instead of Microsoft login you have a built in pw manager that automatically creates and stores (and syncs) accounts for you and so on.
Back in the day, Ubuntu made huge strides in UX and usability, and they're still riding the coattails of that success even now that they've shifted to the corporate sector.
ElementaryOS came out and was super polished, simple, and beautiful. That's still kinda true, but their small team has meant that they're now falling behind the likes of Gnome, who've set out to do a similar thing.
The Cinnamon desktop is ugly out of the box, but other aspects of UX have been pretty great - everything is simple, they were pioneers in making everything a GUI option, rather than the last 5% of things having to be done in a config file or via terminal.
And finally, Gnome. Extremely polished, consistent, beautiful, and heavily UX-focused. That applies not only to their own system, but also to their third party app ecosystem. Just look at the apps on Gnome Circle - a Gnome project for showcasing apps that nail the Gnome design guidelines. Tell me they don't look like they have a focus on UX.
Honestly, even MacOS struggles to feel as UX-focused as Gnome, and that's saying something. UX is like, Apple's entire schtick. Everything from trackpad gestures to UI elements, subtle animations, etc in Gnome is about UX.
Even KDE Plasma, which is often mocked for being hilariously inconsistent and filled with bizarre clunky UX, has made major strides in the past couple of years, and Plasma 6, releasing very soon, will fix a bunch of fundamental things that currently hold Plasma back from being consistent, and a significant portion of bugs have been fixed - it looks like it won't be the buggy mess that Plasma 4 and early Plasma 5 was. We're about to see a major improvement.
