People online complain that Linux is hard to install for new users. But who are these people and why do they levy these complaints? The biggest barrier for the new Linux user isn't the installer; i...
Didn’t watch the video… but the premise “The biggest barrier for the new Linux user isn’t the installer” is exactly why Microsoft is, sadly, dominating the end-user (not servers) market.
What Microsoft managed to do with OEMs is NOT to have an installer at all! People buy (or get, via their work) a computer and… use it. There is not installation step for the vast majority of people.
I’m not saying that’s good, only that strategy wise, if the single metric is adoption rate, no installer is a winning strategy.
Most people who go out and buy a computer doesn’t understand what an OS is. If Linux was standard when you bought a PC, it would be the dominating OS. I mean, you could switch the OS to Linux on the computers and I think most people wouldn’t realise when they buy it lol
Indeed, so my argument is that sure a “better” installer might change a small fraction of the marketshare, say 1%, but it’s not enough to change significantly, say 10% or even reach parity.
An interesting example is the Steam Deck coming with Linux installed. Sure there are few people who do (by choice) install Windows alongside Linux but AFAIK the vast majority do not. That’s IMHO particularly interesting on a topic, gaming, where Windows has been traditionally the #1 reason people picked a specific OS.
Linux definitively does dominate the end user market. You just mean the end user desktop/laptop market.
I agree though that preinstallation is the biggest deal. The fact that people have to install Linux at all is the problem. The installer itself is already 100x better than the Windows one, but that’s not enough.
Not to mention it means manufacturers ensure all the hardware is compatible, drivers etc are installed and working, which is why windows users feel it works better.
Didn’t watch the video… but the premise “The biggest barrier for the new Linux user isn’t the installer” is exactly why Microsoft is, sadly, dominating the end-user (not servers) market.
What Microsoft managed to do with OEMs is NOT to have an installer at all! People buy (or get, via their work) a computer and… use it. There is not installation step for the vast majority of people.
I’m not saying that’s good, only that strategy wise, if the single metric is adoption rate, no installer is a winning strategy.
Most people who go out and buy a computer doesn’t understand what an OS is. If Linux was standard when you bought a PC, it would be the dominating OS. I mean, you could switch the OS to Linux on the computers and I think most people wouldn’t realise when they buy it lol
Indeed, so my argument is that sure a “better” installer might change a small fraction of the marketshare, say 1%, but it’s not enough to change significantly, say 10% or even reach parity.
An interesting example is the Steam Deck coming with Linux installed. Sure there are few people who do (by choice) install Windows alongside Linux but AFAIK the vast majority do not. That’s IMHO particularly interesting on a topic, gaming, where Windows has been traditionally the #1 reason people picked a specific OS.
Linux definitively does dominate the end user market. You just mean the end user desktop/laptop market.
I agree though that preinstallation is the biggest deal. The fact that people have to install Linux at all is the problem. The installer itself is already 100x better than the Windows one, but that’s not enough.
Not to mention it means manufacturers ensure all the hardware is compatible, drivers etc are installed and working, which is why windows users feel it works better.
If you mean unrootable Googled Android then I don’t consider that Linux. If you mean something else please clarify.
.
So… Linux the kernel but without the freedom?
.