Why people don’t use linux as desktop and why it is not popular for desktop and people use windows
Because I don't think this is the point of Linux. I am using Ubuntu but I plan to change to Arch Linux because I changed everything in Ubuntu but the package manager. Linux is when you want to have full control over your computer (in terms of hardware and software) and not being annoyed by a 3d party company who think your computer is theirs.
As a longterm linux dude.
I have dual boot so I don't care about most of the issues and I use the terminal most of the times.
Still I most likely won't switch back to windows or mac as a main system. Taste :) I know a lot of cases where one OS beats the other, I feel most comfortable on linux as primary system.
Let me be blunt about Linux on desktop.
Linux desktop manager developers don't care for user experience. (Take example of gnome. It's gymnastic in it's own way)
Linux desktop forces you to use CLI every now and then. Unlike mac and windows, CLI isn't optional on linux.
People are really snarky and obnoxious in Linux community. Their activism and socialism approach goes out of hand and often people don't want such negativity for simply using desktop. You don't have such negativity and activism propaganda always hanging on your shoulder when you use Mac and Windows. KDE people hate anyone who innovate anything before them and don't use KDE. Gnome people don't care about anyone but their own team when it comes to UX. And such drama goes on and on in linux..
Lot of desktop apps which are popular on Mac and Windows don't have strong replacement on Linux.
Lot of driver issues.
Harder to fix boots and other issues without knowing command line or often harder to fix especially if you are using old hardware.
Nobody cares about design in Linux community. We are in 2019 but lot of Linux desktops are still in 1999. If you check some of the UI of some desktop managers, you'd just get irritated with windows border themes and icons.
Difference of opinion does not end well in Linux community. I used to love Ubuntu unity but the amount of hate that was aimed at canonical. I am surprised at they are even funding that free OS after so much hate. If I were to be owning canonical I'd have shifted all my business out of that free OS.
Windows and Mac being mature a lot of documentation is out as soon as the updates come in. In case of linux there is a lot of fragmentation on that front and nobody gets paid for fixing it being an open source in fact you re more likely to get hate for helping out on linux than anything. So why would anyone waste their time of their life doing micro fault management on linux everyday?
It's not worth developing premium app for customers because linux users are less likely pay for the premium application.
Because there are too many distributions.
Now don’t get me wrong, having a choice is a good thing. But consider this from a developer’s point of view:
I’d like to make this shiny new app available for Linux. The main goal here is to make it accessible for people without deep Linux knowledge.
Even if you target only the most used distributions, Ubuntu, Debian, and Fedora, you still have to create two (well, actually three) package definition files: an RPM spec for Fedora, and a DEB spec for Debian (and a slightly modified DEB spec for Ubuntu).
Then, even if you did it right, you have to distribute it somehow. You can try to get your package into the distribution itself, but the review process is lengthy, and sometimes you just can’t comply with the rules (e.g. both your package and its dependencies my have a free licence). The other way is to manage your own repository for both Fedora, Ubuntu, and Debian.
This, obviously, called for action, so people invented AppImage. Then Flatpak. And then Snap.
I think you can see the pattern here… This, obviously, makes a lot of software unavailable for Linux, or you have to be a command line wizard to install them locally.
Now, back to the users’ point of view: since <insert-your-favourite-nonstandard-app-here> is not available in Linux unless i have cmdlinefu level 9000, i stay with Windows (or OS/X).
Not an Ubuntu user here. In fact, I go down the rabbit hole and use Gentoo on my desktop, which means compiling and configuring everything.
Imho, one of the major problems of Linux is its legacy. Whenever I talk to people about Linux on the desktop, people usually shoo away, but they always use the same argument: Linux? Isn't that a lot of complicated command line action, bad UX, ugly UIs and most programs I need don't work?
Today's Linux situation is great! There are very beautiful, user friendly DEs, like KDE, and distributions built around them, like KaOS and Antergos. Installing and using them works entirely without touching the command line. For most programs, there is a native Linux version, an alternative program doing the same thing, or Wine. Even gaming isn't an argument anymore. Especially Valve with their Project Proton is doing a great job, and actually increased the Linux gamer share by 0.2-0.3% "overnight" (which is a big deal for a sub-1% number).
However, people usually don't want to hear that. They use Windows and things just work. Why put work into installing Linux, re-learning how to use the computer and re-installing and re-configuring everything? No one wants to put work into no obvious benefits. The situation is even worse for macOS users, because Apple has created a kingdom of simplicity. Anything outside Apple is complex, and usually Apple is also based on the brand name and fandom. So getting an Apple use to switch to Linux is something I'd probably never succeed in - except they go bankrupt and need a cheap computer asap.
The situation with the endless version 10 does not improve the overall situation. People don't have to upgrade their OS anymore, or even re-install their system from scratch. As such, I don't actually see the popularity of Linux on desktop rise significantly in the near future. It's more likely that, with developers starting to target more platforms, people might gradually switch over. Also, things like Chrome book definitely are a boost to Linux on desktop, however it still takes time until they are used by many people (and until people understand, that they are in fact using a Linux, not "Fuchsia").
Well for example, I spent 60 minutes yesterday because my /boot/ partition was full so apt-get didn't work.
You have to balance disadvantages like that against the benefit, which is being able to customize everything, saving a few dozen euros, and maybe better dev tools.
I like Ubuntu, but I never recommend it to people who aren't programmers. Their only relevant advantage is saving a few dozen euros at the cost of weird problems they can't solve, and games and Office being difficult.
A daily Ubuntu user here (switched from Windows)
I've been a big fan of Ubuntu since 2008. I constantly switch between Windows and Ubuntu. After 10 years, looking back I see that Windows and MacOS have grown much much better in UI/UX when compared to Ubuntu.
I always keep up to date with the latest versions of Ubuntu. Still, I'm facing a lot of problems
PS: I'm switching to Mac very soon
Gijo Varghese
A WordPress speed enthusiast
Gustavo Benedito Costa
Deaf-born, computer science student and language lover
Nicolas Bouhours
Software engineer
I'm a windows user and personnally i've tried to install linux (manjaro) on my computer and i switch back.
The things is that when you aren't an advanced linux user, you just lost time when you use a linux install some software can be hard when you are windows user ...). There are also some software/ games that i cannot use on linux.
So i just see that i've just lost some times to use linux and i don't see lot of advantages for my use case.
Docker + windows seems enought for me.