[AndyHarglesis13]

I'll add my expensive input here for you people who think Windows, Mac, and Linux application-layered distros, and OSes are all the same - they're not.

Windows uses a complete different kernel to talk to the hardware, a whole different set of libraries, APIs, and shells, parses things differently, and has direct installable-and-clickable executables with wizards. Windows also has the most software-compatibility support compared to all other OSes, and most commercial programs are made for Windows. Windows operates on a GUI-mainly basis, and the TBI(text-based interface) is robust, simple, and has an easy to learn and use command-interpreter. Things are easy to set up, optimizations are nothing many will ultimately complain about, it's easy to run your favorite programs, optimaze and categorize them, move them around visual-language directories, but I will say that the Windows 7's file security system is a pain in the arse.

Macs are somewhat like Windows in their GUI, but not their libraries, kernels, APIs, and applications layers - they are 100% different. Macs have a more Unix-style interface, and use different filesystems than Windows. Installations are very easy, dynamically-rich graphics, glossy effects, and great introductory software comes pre-installed in many store-bought systems. Application optimization is easy, and executable programs are nothing out of this world.

Linux based distros are, to say the least, mostly deterent to your typical user in many ways. Installable OSes aren't direct - a Linux distro(aside from Android - that one seems to have "made it"), such as Fedora, Ubuntu, Puppy Linux, Debian, etc., etc., etc.(so many I find it a bit uncreative since they're all so similar to one another)are not "easy" to get up and working like Windows and Mac. Virtually almost every Linux distro is downloaded as a disc image (.iso) and expected to be put on a storage medium with the use of more third-party software from a host computer before getting prepared to be executed("booted from")the secondary, or "primary" computer. Most distros automatically run from LiveCDs in memory, and many have the option to install on hard drives(given that you understand "how that exactly works", which most people don't and most distributors fail to document this, leaving many in the dust), and this also is down-setting for those without hard drives - installation becomes much, MUCH different to install on your LiveUSB that's just running in memory(something that causes more confusion to users).
Installing would require prior knowledge of partitioning drive storage blocks, filesystems, loop backs, what a "kernel" is, commands, documented knowledge of software repositories and the Linux application-layered GUI(those can change too, leaving more perplexed ideals of their system), the GUI-layer to run the apps, and what "mounting" means, how to set a "mount point", boot flags as well, and many other technical terms that 90% of computer users aren't 100% certain of. This confusion can be blamed on open-source development - get your paws away doesn't exist anymore. ANYONE has their hands to twiddle around and dweeb the interface up, have no documentation to help you, require frequent internet searches for help assistance on setting up apps on the command line, "cd-ing" in directories, file permission settings on the failed journaling file systems and difficulty establishing a friendly-user interface with the system.

That, my friends, is only a short description of why Linux is not #1.

[linuxrants7xpg]

AndyHarglesis13, on 18 November 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Linux based distros are, ...

<snip>

... difficulty establishing a friendly-user interface with the system.

Based on that, it doesn't appear you actually know much about Linux.

AndyHarglesis13, on 18 November 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

That, my friends, is only a short description of why Linux is not #1.

No, Linux is not "#1" (on the desktop at least) because Microsoft had already established a monopoly over the desktop and desktop computer OEMs before the first line of code was written for Linux. It's that simple.

[dukeljk]

You guys all smoke tons of crack, you would have to be a moron to use anything Linux. Example, download and install nvidia drivers on windows is one click. How the hell do you do it in Linux? You have to use the command line, why i the hell would you want to do that? Well it doesn't matter there isn't any games for Linux anyway. Why do I have to compile all the software that I download, that is pretty stupid in my book, that is why no one uses Linux.

[waldojim]

dukeljk, on 13 December 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

You guys all smoke tons of crack, you would have to be a moron to use anything Linux. Example, download and install nvidia drivers on windows is one click. How the hell do you do it in Linux? You have to use the command line, why i the hell would you want to do that? Well it doesn't matter there isn't any games for Linux anyway. Why do I have to compile all the software that I download, that is pretty stupid in my book, that is why no one uses Linux.

I use one click in Linux. Linux asks me if I want the official drivers, I say yes. It is that simple.

[linuxrants7xpg]

dukeljk, on 13 December 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Example, download and install nvidia drivers on windows is one click. How the hell do you do it in Linux? You have to use the command line, why i the hell would you want to do that?

No you don't have to use the command line. It's a simple to use GUI. So, based on your obvious lack of knowledge of the subject at hand I have to ask the obvious question: Why the hell should I care about what you have to say?

[Extremist]

Is Linux harder to use? There's no definitive answer, since there are hundreds of different distributions with different interfaces. The common belief is that the installation process is pure hell, it's hard to find drivers, and you need to go through all sorts of command line stuff to accomplish daily tasks. Although this is true for some distributions, Linux is not categorically hard to use. Distros such as Mint and Ubuntu are intuitive and quite simple to use. The mobile market is ruled by Unix-based operating systems, with Android (Linux-based) and iOS (BSD-based) accounting for the lion's share. Linux can be harder to use, but it does not have to be.

[nwright86]

Absolutely Linux is too difficult to use!

Example:
I've been trying to learn how to use it on and off for more than 5 years and I still can't install anything.
I am not an idiot. I am very comfortable with pc or mac.

Too difficult for an Architect, 27yo who's used computers everyday since he was 6: how on earth do you imagine that people like my dad could possibly use linux?

Linux will NEVER get mainstream adoption because it is ridiculously complicated for 99% of potential users.


Get real.

[waldojim]

nwright86, on 30 March 2013 - 02:31 AM, said:

Absolutely Linux is too difficult to use!

Example:
I've been trying to learn how to use it on and off for more than 5 years and I still can't install anything.
I am not an idiot. I am very comfortable with pc or mac.

Too difficult for an Architect, 27yo who's used computers everyday since he was 6: how on earth do you imagine that people like my dad could possibly use linux?

Linux will NEVER get mainstream adoption because it is ridiculously complicated for 99% of potential users.


Get real.

If you can't figure out how to install something when there is a great big "click here then install" feature, then you aren't as bright as you claim.