What makes switching to GNU Linux almost impossible for many?

https://nixsanctuary.com/when-and-where-it-gets-impossible-to-use-gnu-linux/

by paulcarroty • 2 years ago

19 96 2 years ago

klardotsh• 2 years ago

This article seems to cover little new ground and struggles to find a real... point? voice? authority? to me. Like, okay, yes, proprietary applications exist and have limited Linux support. This has been true for my literal entire human life, and will probably remain true for much of the rest of it.

The article gets so close to talking about some of the real problems (network effect, notably on messaging and social apps), but then skirts around the issue rather than tackling it head-on, talking about how to bridge iMessage into other workflows in ways Apple may well shut down (see Beeper) rather than discussing the difficult, but possible, work of encouraging a friend group to use plenty-viable alternatives (for example, even without going into the FOSS space like we could/arguably-should, even Discord is less locked-up than iMessage, and is a trivial lift to get folks to move over to).

firebaze2• 2 years ago

My 80yo father switched 4 months ago to Linux (PopOS) and is happy after I showed him how he can access gmail, Word (Office 365 Word in Chromium) and his photos.

After he learned he didn't have to install a printer driver but could just print (and scan), he asked me why I didn't tell him earlier.

whatever12• 2 years ago

Bad UI/UX and hardware support.

There is no incentive for these to be fixed by the community hence people will not switch.

For smartphones where Google fixed them, people adopted overnight.

In data centers where companies have the incentive to fix hardware support of raid controllers etc, and UI is not important, we also saw complete dominance.

lousken4• 2 years ago

bad UI/UX? I saw windows 11 having a terrible UI and people still use it

hw support? what kind of hardware? first party support for gaming accessories is far from great, but unless you want to do macros on your gaming hardware with wayland, the rest for a regular user is pretty much fully covered

blueflow2• 2 years ago

I tried to switch from my i3wm setup to a stock Ubuntu/GNOME and found it the same kind of unusable as Windows - GUI elements do not tell what they are about to do, implicit gestures (you have to google it to learn them), slow input latency. Quite a frustrating experience.

whatever12• 2 years ago

My litmus test is to fresh install a distribution set it up. The moment I have to use terminal to set up my machine I stop, it means the UI is still incomplete.

Imagine if a cellphone required you to open a terminal to configure your touchscreen or the sleep states.

It’s that bad for a newbie.

Neither windows or android have ever required me to use terminal to set them up.

makeitdouble2• 2 years ago

what kind of hardware?

GPUs are still in the "check some site if it works before you buy" territory and I hear nvidia is stil kinda adversarial.

The second biggest one is tablets and 2 in 1 laptops. It's a full computer form factor that has piss poor support, albeit you still get a linux subsystem with win11 and chromeOS.

On minor stuff, trackpads aren't great. TBF Apple set the bar so high all other platform become disappointing, but it should be mentionned.

attentive• 2 years ago

Video hardware decoding in the browser.

Doing software decoding is just silly waste of electricity.

I know, you can achieve it, in some browser, but not the other, may be.

Dalewyn4• 2 years ago

I'm not necessarily a fan of Windows 11 Explorer, but I still find it several lightyears better than any of the Linux DEs.

Even in spite of the infamous schizophrenia that's been evident in Explorer since Windows 8 and 10, it's still more consistent and reliable than Linux DEs.

firebaze2• 2 years ago

It's almost the opposite in 2024.

MattPalmer1086• 2 years ago

I'd dispute bad UI. I find Gnome far nicer to use than Windows, which has a completely inconsistent UI.

Hardware support, maybe for some things, but again, Linux supports old hardware far better in my experience.

I think it's mostly that Windows is the de facto business standard, and for home people just buy what they already know.

makeitdouble2• 2 years ago

Linux supports old hardware far better in my experience.

This is the crux of it: linux really shines for older paradigms and protocols. It makes it a great OS if what you're doing was cuting edge decades ago.

Another thread mentions printing. Use devs rely on core tools day day out thare often older than us. Most people got used to computers before touch, and have absolutely not need for a touch screen, etc.

Same for UI really.

But if you'te target is something forming right now, or bringing new paradigms (let's say VR games), going linux will mean you either create everything you need for yourself almost on your own, or move to something else (probably Windows)

blueflow2• 2 years ago

Bad UI. Everyone is trying to emulate Apple experience, and doing a pretty bad job at it.

If you aren't easy with the console, stick to Windows/Apple.

willsoon3• 2 years ago

Manjaro user. Yes, I use the console. Because I want to! In many scenarios you dont want to run and entire gui just to do a search, or do some other thing in which you end up typing anyway. Of course I can update my core in visual mode on the fly. I'm assuming Windows can do that as well.

realusername2• 2 years ago

The answer is just the power of defaults nowadays, defaults are powerful and windows is pre-installed.

Nowadays the vast majority of the blocking issues are outdated and user friendly distributions are fine for non technical users.

Windows also regressed quite a bit in the last decade as well which definitely helps when comparing.

throw7• 2 years ago

It is tradeoffs.

For CS people, it's not that hard to switch and understand the tradeoffs, especially because they will have the skills to know & handle the obstacles. The vast majority of lusers will not... they will spend money to save time (yes folks... save their time) to do what they want and need to do.

This reminded me of what Ernie Ball said at some linux trade show many moons ago...

"I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,' We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly.

"It's just software. You have to figure out what you need to do within your organization and then get the right stuff for that. And we're not a backwards organization. We're progressive; we've won communications and design awards...The fact that I'm not sending my e-mail through Outlook doesn't hinder us. It's just kind of funny. I'm speaking to a standing-room-only audience at a major technology show because I use a different piece of software--that's hysterical."

fbdab1032• 2 years ago

Link to the Ernie Ball story https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/rockin-on-without-mi...

xethos• 2 years ago

And I don't have to buy new computers every time [Microsoft] come out with a new release and abandon the old one.

I know you can get around it, but that's a hell of a 20-year-old quote in the face of Windows 11 dropping support for so many PCs

macintux• 2 years ago

lusers

Really?

enasterosophes2• 2 years ago

The majority of computers in the world run Linux. This article is pitched at people who hang around in the mezzanine between big and small computers and are still living in 2006 when desktop experiences were dominant.

pmontra2• 2 years ago

Well, the desktop experience is dominant for every single person using a computer. The uncountable servers they use through their web browser are hidden by their desktop.

Even people using mobile devices don't see servers. They see the UI of their phones and tablets. Same for voice enabled devices: the UI is the voice, the server is hidden.

Disclaimer: I use Debian with GNOME.

Dalewyn4• 2 years ago

Well, the desktop experience is dominant for every single person using a computer.

Most people spend more time on their phone than their desktop/laptop, if they even have one.

Note, smartphones are computers.

andrewstuart2• 2 years ago

Desktop Linux has inconsistencies everywhere that trash user experience relative to companies like Apple who have incredibly consistent user experience.

I give desktop Linux a try every few years to see where it is at. Copy and paste alone makes me so mad with Linux that even that single factor would make me drop it - bearing in mind that copy and paste is something I do every few minutes it's not OK for it to totally suck. If Linux really cared about user experience then I should at the barest minimum be able to use Windows and Mac copy/paste keys without even thinking about it.

It should be said that Windows has pretty bad user consistency as well. Microsoft update the Windows UI but elements from many generations ago seem to pop up everywhere.

cherryteastain3• 2 years ago

What's bad about copy paste? I daily drive GNU/Linux, and I never experienced copy paste issues. I also have both technical and non technically inclined people I know who daily drive GNU/Linux, none of them complained about copy paste either.

rangestransform• 2 years ago

Middle click paste is unable to be disabled, which really doesn’t play well with using the thinkpad trackpoint middle button for scrolling and middle clicking

andrewstuart2• 2 years ago

Can I use the same copy and paste keys as I use on Mac and Windows? Without .... dread ... configuring Linux.

mixmastamyk2• 2 years ago

I have zero problems with copy and paste on Linux and the extra selection buffer paste is a great boost to productivity.

willsoon3• 2 years ago

That's not true. Nowadays, even using the mouse to move files works well.Of course, it is not recommended on any machine or operating system.

thefz• 2 years ago

Desktop Linux has inconsistencies everywhere that trash user experience relative to companies like Apple who have incredibly consistent user experience.

Because being a generalist operating system built by volunteers and supposed to support tens of thousands of hardware combinations and use cases is exactly the same as being a multi billion company building your own hardware and software on top of it, right?

cherryteastain3• 2 years ago

It's not the default for anyone. Normal people are not interested in OSes, they just want to look at their emails or watch youtube. If most laptops were sold with e.g. Ubuntu, I'm fairly sure few people would bother switching them to Windows.

Unlike the prevalent opinion here, I disagree that modern GNU/Linux distros have bad UI/UX. Once set up, the average person is very well served by modern GNU/Linux. I installed Kubuntu for my parents (they're in their 60s, very non-technical people) and they've been using it no problem for 4 years now. My father even reinstalled it from scratch himself after their SSD died by just following the installer. I almost never get any technical support requests from them either.

anonymouskimmer• 2 years ago

Right. I stopped computer tinkering a long time ago. I installed Biolinux on my laptop back in 2013, needed some help when transitioning to Ubuntu, and have used the terminal so few times that my entire .zsh_history is in some 45153 bytes.

It works fine for everything personal I use it for. I use a Windows work computer for the rest.

yoavm3• 2 years ago

This. People don't switch to Linux mainly because people don't switch operating systems.

woleium• 2 years ago

many don’t even know that it’s possible, or what the delineation between os and application is.

SAI_Peregrinus3• 2 years ago

People use computers to accomplish tasks. Not to use operating systems, not to use applications, just to accomplish tasks.

Often those tasks involve a particular workflow they know, so alternative applications must support the exact same workflow to be acceptable.

Linux usually has different workflows, and thus can't accomplish the same tasks. It can often accomplish similar tasks, but that's not usually good enough to be worth the effort of switching away from a default. The alternative has to be significantly better than the original.

Some tasks also have network effects, e.g. online games. Alternatives that aren't compatible with the existing network are useless.

Most people don't care about the OS. They don't really care about the particular applications. People care about the tasks they want to accomplish & the workflows they know to accomplish them.

knightoffaith• 2 years ago

Yeah, I think this is right. GNU/Linux works perfectly fine for the normal person's use case - the main issue is that it's not the default, and switching is a pain.

Really, GNU/Linux should be the default. People have this impression that Windows and MacOS is for normal people but GNU/Linux is a strange specialized OS for techies, but really, it's the opposite. The average person really just needs to be able to launch a browser (which gets you email, social media, cloud storage, document editing/management, whatever else). GNU/Linux is perfectly fine for that, and may even be the most sensible solution.

It's actually Windows and MacOS that are the "specialist" operating systems - when you really need to use specialized software like Photoshop, Logic Pro, or whatever else, and when the Linux/browser alternatives aren't good enough for you.

appplication• 2 years ago

the main issue is that it's not the default, and switching is a pain.

I would disagree. The main issue is basic driver incompatibility and in depth, dev-level debugging required when something goes wrong rather than just visiting the Apple or Microsoft forum.

I will say this is less of an issue than it was 10 years ago, but it’s certainly not a non-issue. If you’re average Joe looking to switch this is a huge impediment.

saurik6• 2 years ago

If Adobe ported their apps to Linux (which I can't imagine would even be that hard, as they are already using their own toolkit) I would not only switch but never look back; and if Adobe released their own distribution of Linux and went all-in on some first-party toolkit (so, no Gnome/KDE) I think they might accidentally win a massive segment of the desktop OS market.

amorroxic• 2 years ago

Maybe this could be useful? https://www.playonlinux.com/en/ (able to run Photoshop myself)

saurik6• 2 years ago

FWIW, I care a lot more about Indesign and Premiere Pro (and I'd need the hardware acceleration to work for the latter): I barely ever use Photoshop (though I do use Lightroom Classic and, every now and again, Illustrator). But like, having to run Windows to do my audio/video editing work is getting unbearable recently with all the BS Microsoft thinks they can feel justified doing :(.

jdksmdbtbdnmsm2• 2 years ago

Great solution if you're looking to spend hours installing CS6 built for a 1280x720 display, or CS18 (high DPI support) with very buggy operation and constant crashes. I've been there, done that.

yoavm3• 2 years ago

Well, some parts of the Adobe stack are already web native, meaning they work perfectly in Linux. For example - Photoshop, Lightroom, Acrobat Pro. I believe this will only grow with time, mostly because it makes it easier for them to do subscriptions.

jdksmdbtbdnmsm2• 2 years ago

Apple and Microsoft would simply never allow that to happen. End of story. The Open Source "community" is hell-bent on finding technical solutions for political problems, and this is the best among countless examples of why it's a hopeless mission from the outset.

saurik6• 2 years ago

Can you explain how this is a "technical solution to a political problem"? I totally buy that it might be a politically incorrect move, but Apple, at least, already screws Adobe over constantly... it doesn't even have to be open source: if Adobe released a fully-proprietary first-party userland stack for Linux--one which replaced Gnome and KDE, as these "community" efforts are not just failing but in some cases have become actively evil--I think it could be extremely competitive in the lucrative niche of software (as we are all paying customers who pay more to Adobe than I ever would to Microsoft) for creative professionals.

dist-epoch3• 2 years ago

But would you pay for Adobe software on Linux? When Adobe surveyed that they found that what people mean by "Photoshop should run on Linux" is "Photoshop should be installable from the package manager for free on Linux"

pauby• 2 years ago

Do you have a source for this?

saurik6• 2 years ago

Yes: I pay a lot of money for Adobe software on Windows... why would I suddenly stop paying if it ran on some Linux system? I am not "I would use Photoshop if it were on Linux"; I am "I already use all of Adobe's software but I am fed up with Windows".

mjevans• 2 years ago

I could see Adobe trying to compete with Apple, maybe even make their own app dist store.

dansalvato• 2 years ago

Adobe also thwarted me from daily driving Linux a few years ago when I gave it an honest attempt. I'm practically hoping that Microsoft pulls some shit to step on their toes, like develop competing products, so that Adobe has a real incentive to get its users off of Windows (like Valve does). Microsoft has gotten increasingly aggressive these past 5 years in force-feeding their ecosystem of services to Windows users, and it's making the desktop UX worse for both savvy and non-savvy users.

timeon• 2 years ago

all-in on some first-party toolkit

Adobe on macOS is not really native. It is barely usable bloatware. I only use it when I really need to explicitly collaborate on some Indesign thing now. For anything else it is Affinity.

saurik6• 2 years ago

I don't think most people are like you, FWIW: the obsession with "native" toolkits always seems to be something some designers insist is super important (and so I admit it might matter a lot for a couple Adobe apps that awkwardly target people in this demographic), but most of the non-designers I know prefer the exact opposite whenever given a choice...

mixmastamyk2• 2 years ago

Most people have locked themselves into Office and/or the Apple ecosystem.

However with so much moved to the web one of the traditional barriers has fallen.

ycui1986• 2 years ago

For me it is lack of high end mechanical/electrical CAD software.

willsoon3• 2 years ago

No developer here. IDK. My boss uses those Apple things and stuff. And our business was a bit sensitive at the time. So I insisted that we use our own servers. He told me once when he was dealing with some trivial Word formatting: We old guys know nothing but Google Docs. And he's older than me. And I remember struggling with a bunch of code-like characters to centre my title... in Wordstar? LaTeX is crystal clear by comparison. Maybe some people like machines. And some people can't learn anymore.

heads• 2 years ago

The gaming paragraph seems a little too underwhelming. Steam Deck is a perfect implementation of a Linux computer. I adore using it just to glow in the polish and expertise with which it has been assembled. Kudos, Valve. I don’t even have a Windows install anymore.

fbdab1032• 2 years ago

However, Proton/Deck cannot play everything, which is where the trade-offs hit. The library support is continually improving, but that does you little good if your friends are all playing X, but that title only runs on Windows.

haunter• 2 years ago

The gaming paragraph seems a little too underwhelming

Last I've tried variable refresh rate (Gsync) support was all over the place. Wayland, Xorg, GNOME, different DEs, buy AMD instead etc. Endless googling and searching forums.

I just _want to use it_ but it's nowhere near a hassle-free ('just works' on Windows) experience.

And maybe it's an enthusiast level thing but I also care about GPU/CPU undervolting which is once again is an almost non-existent field in Linux.

And on top of that I always end up with an analysis paralysis. Which DE? Which distro? Which package manager? Too many variables and one thing that works with Ubuntu and GNOME won't work with Arch and KDE. Especially if you are searching around the internet for an X answer.

I use Linux at work but that's more than enough for me lol.

Linux is good for certain type of people but certainly not for everyone imo. To me it feels like you either have to be a really dedicated hardcore user who is willing to tinker and spend hours to solve problems OR a very basic user (you only use a web browser and LibreOffice). Everything in between is a mess.

MBCook3• 2 years ago

This article, like so many I’ve seen in the past, seems to almost take the theory that people would be happy to switch if just a few things were fixed about Linux.

No one cares but nerds. Normal people just want to get work done.

Nothing in this article explains how they could do that better with Linux. How it would save them time. How it would be easier. It’s entirely focused on how they could replace things they do today with a (possibly worse) equivalent program.

Windows is “free“ to people because it comes with the computer. Unless the software is exclusive to the Mac it’s available on Windows. Most OSS included.

People switch to Mac because it works better with their iPhone. Or because they want to use Logic Pro. Or they want to develop for the iPhone.

People switch to Windows because it has way way more software than anything else. It’s where all gaming outside of consoles is. The hardware is cheaper than a Mac and there are way more options.

Linux has less software people want. Far far fewer hardware options (I mean pre-built machines sold at normal stores). If Linux meant you could save $500 on a computer it might be interesting. But when you can buy a full windows laptop for $250 bucks you’re gonna have a hard time making that argument. The only benefits people tend to tout are intangibles like freedom and control, in exchange for giving up everything you’re used to and fewer software choices.

It’s like arguing that you’re selling the greenest car. That’s nice. And some people will appreciate that. But a lot of people won’t care at all. And if that’s the only argument you have you’re not gonna sell a lot of them.

You need an article on why Linux will make your life so much easier and you just haven’t heard about it before. Proprietary software is not the number one thing holding people back. The number one thing holding people back is they’ve never been given a reason that appeals to them for why they should consider switching.

dist-epoch3• 2 years ago

The only benefits people tend to tout are intangibles like freedom and control

Which most users don't even understand: "What do you mean I don't have freedom if I use Mac/Windows? So what if you can change the source code, I'm not a programmer"

1ark• 2 years ago

Need to frame it correctly, monetary and safety, for example. "You have to buy a new PC when Microsoft decides to not update your Windows anymore and make the new version incompatible with your current PC. If you don't, your PC will be vulnerable to criminal hackers. With freedom and control you control the schedule, otherwise Microsoft does."

SAI_Peregrinus3• 2 years ago

Yep. People want to accomplish tasks. They want to do that with workflows they already know, or that are easy to learn. If they can't accomplish the same tasks with Linux, then Linux isn't usable.

The one Linux feature I miss on other OSes isn't even a Linux feature, it's NixOS's declarative configuration. Nothing to do with the Linux kernel or the GNU userspace CLI tools or glibc, just the ability to manage a system and user(s) with a version-controlled configuration.

cykros3• 2 years ago

At one point perhaps people thought that the cost factor would weigh in, but given how many people buy Macbooks to use google docs and watch cat videos, I think it's safe to say that thriftiness is a lost value.

red-iron-pine• 2 years ago

lifestyle branding and class-based marketing takes over.

my in-laws never use their tech for anything outside of basic word docs or web browsing, but they're fancy so they need to have a Macbook. Same reason they have a Lexus but rarely take trips outside of basic runs into town.

And say what you will about marketing, they're all reliable gear. Something to be said for "buy once, cry once", and then not thinking about it again.

Euphorbium• 2 years ago

Adobe.

ahartmetz• 2 years ago

At this point I'm pretty happy with desktop Linux. Let the normies, and more importantly the scammers and crackers and authors of exploitative software (which includes Microsoft these days...) targeting them, use Windows.

tamimio• 2 years ago

It isn’t for everyone, and not for everything, some software obviously like Adobe won’t work natively or the latest, additionally, more specialized software are mostly on windows like some engineering simulations and other brand centric like automation software. Best I do is having the linux on my laptop while the windows on the desktop that I can access remotely if I ever needed.

bitwize• 2 years ago

People don't want to install an operating system. If PCs came with a blank hard disk and a box of Windows media, almost nobody would buy PCs. The year of the Windows desktop wasn't until 1990, when Microsoft started pressuring OEMs to preinstall Windows 3.0 alongside DOS; prior to that, Windows was something you installed, so nobody wanted it.

If OEMs preinstalled Linux with Cinnamon Desktop or whatever on their PCs and marketed those PCs front and center, put them out on display at Wal-Mart and Best Buy, there would probably be some acceptance among consumers. But that would violate Windows licensing contracts so they don't.

apfsx• 2 years ago

For me, it's just the amount of tweaking necessary in order to get things how I want one. 3 years ago I made multiple attempts to switch and stay on it. First issues were getting Windows applications to run. I tried Wine/Proton/PlayOnLinux and even running a Windows VM with some trickery to make apps appear native through RDP tools I found on github to make it as seamless as possible, it was a lot of work and in the end wasn't very reliable. On top of that for laptops there were even more issues. Laptops with a dGPU and an iGPU had issues switching between the two between battery mode and plugged in, more research and tools in order to fix all the little bugs with this. Even further, battery life was another issue, install more packages make changes to config files and still battery life wouldn't be as good as Windows or macOS on the same hardware, let's say a ThinkPad or Dell XPS that supported Windows or macOS through Hackintosh. In the end I just gave up. I'll always use Linux on servers because nothing comes close but personally I'll stick to Windows Enterprise or Pro, run chocolatey and get everything I need up and running working quickly. For friends and family, Windows 10 IOT LTSC 2021 with a non-admin account and a browser installed. Reliable.

crtified• 2 years ago

The answers seem to mainly fall into the following 2 categories. With the first being by far the most consequent, given that it's the gateway to category 2 which most people do not even enter.

1) Commercial inertia

Everything from dominant industry software, to decades-old OEM hardware deals that have seen Windows/Apple become synonymous with the public's computing experience across a long time, to actual commercial partnerships (e.g. Microsoft and Adobe aren't just happily distant buddies, they're actively working together), and more.

2) Individual inertia

For example, the standard tendency of a user to come from a Windows world into a new system, and expect all things to be as Windows. Also, as per that common refrain from some technical toe-dippers - "I try Linux once-in-a-while, and it once did a bad thing, so, ..." - an outsider's shortcomings tend to live on in peoples memories, even though they may have been fixed or improved many years ago now.

TheLoafOfBread2• 2 years ago

Ridiculous fragmentation. Saying this as a user of 2 years who gave up on Linux after bricking it via graphics card driver installation and went back to Windows and as a developer who was looking recently on supporting Linux and it is just not worth it.

cherryteastain3• 2 years ago

Nvidia?

TheLoafOfBread2• 2 years ago

Yes several years ago.

Dalewyn4• 2 years ago

For me it's:

* Lack of consistency. Everything looks and acts different, and some DEs in particular are very religious.

* Lack of reliability. I can't keep count of how many Linux installs I've killed by doing something as mundane as just running updates. Just no, I need this stuff to work every day.

* Religious zealotry. Look, I don't care about the F or O in FOSS to the extent Linux neckbeards demand of me. I use computers to get stuff done, and Windows lets me get stuff done.

Yoofie• 2 years ago

Linux will never get popular in the mainstream until the Linux community ditches the obsession with doing things through the command line. The second you need to open the terminal to do something useful, you already lost.

There are many reasons why Linux is not popular, but the over reliance on commandline is a obvious one I rarely hear people mention.

micimize• 2 years ago

I've been a SWE for >10 years & have been daily driving a Kubuntu desktop for more than a year now. I regularly run into basic issues day-to-day that require intensive troubleshooting, which would occasionally be catastrophic if I didn't know my way around a terminal. There are still minor issues/glitches I don't bother attempting to fix in preference of restarting.

I mostly feel these headaches are worthwhile in exchange for the freedom and other (mainly severely technical) perks I enjoy about the ecosystem. I can't speak for windows, but coming from macOS, calling the price paid for these perks today steep would still be an understatement to me.

geor9e• 2 years ago

I know it's not a Ask HN post, but for most of my Windows using years, it boiled down to Gimp. It was, and still is, such a slow-loading poorly-functioning image editor that I assumed all of GNU/Linux was just as bad as it was. When people try something, it's the one thing that sucked that they remember the most. Then, when I entered the workforce, all the developers used Mac so I switched to that. I eventually got a Linux laptop as my main work laptop, but that wasn't my choice, the company just required it.

mikewarot• 2 years ago

For me, it's WikidPad, a personal wiki, written in Python. I was all set with Ubuntu about 2 years ago, but had to switch back to Windows 10 because WikidPad, which had all my notes in it, just didn't work properly under Linux. I started missing doctors appointments because I couldn't see them. 8(

There were breaking changes to Python, and to WxPython which made all of the GUI forms break, and I couldn't figure out how to fix it. This has personally turned me against Python, which seems to have a culture of moving fast and breaking things, without regard to the price users pay.

The Windows executable distribution works, and is likely to work for the next decade. There's a stability to the Win32 API and their focus on backward compatibility that Linux just can't match.

cykros3• 2 years ago

Lack of imagination. The amount of things people think of as impossible is staggering. Staying inside every box they've ever been put in, until they get put in the one that goes in the ground.

Even when it's cheap enough to not switch, but simply fire up a second computer for the cost of some single gaming peripherals.

But this is all why it might seem impossible. The reality is most people don't even want to switch, and the amount that don't even know they could if they wanted to is probably a lot higher than this crowd likely realizes. I do call center work that isn't tech specifically, but we do help with our website. You think people know what a "browser" or an "address bar" is, let alone an operating system (or which one they're using)?

What makes switching to GNU Linux almost impossible for many?

Related Stories