Linux

To me, it felt like an obvious imitation of the myriad of articles that often have someone try Linux out, shortly, and then – often with obvious not understanding or just a surface level insight – proudly and definitively stating (or, at least, subtextually implying) that Linux was interesting but clearly not ready to be a Real™ operating system, etc.

But it seems most didn't read it as that, either.

I agree that an email program is not Microsoft’s problem. However, there was a real issue there.

His point was that he knew how to easily use SSH to get around a badly behaved Linux GUI program that was monopolizing or disabling the UI. He did not know how to accomplish that on Windows.

As a Linux user, this scores points for me as it does highlight the flexibility, power, and control that Linux offers. It is also true that you have more power at the Linux command-line (even in a world with PowerShell) which is what SSH gives you access to.

That said, this article came across too much like “Windows does not work exactly like Linux and does not have all the things I love about Linux”. It also came across like a Linux expert being frustrated with a system he does not know as well.

We have had years of these kinds of articles slamming Linux when Windows people expect it to work exactly like Windows does. Those articles are dumb. We do not need to start filling the world with Linux versions of the same.

All of the stuff on this arrival is small time, first time run noise. Use it for a month and give an honest assessment of the pros and cons. What saved you time once the system was set up? What took longer? What entirely new capabilities got added to your workflow? What limitations were you just not able to overcome?

The two that I think are more systemic are OneDrive and Ads. Those are going to continue to drag on you long after the initial setup issues have faded into the background.

There is a good chance that this guy is a bit counter-cultural and does not want to use the obvious version of anything.

Look at the Windows mail client he tried to go with.

There was a lot of BS advertising not long ago about it being a web browser "for gamers", whatever that means.

Perhaps for old time's sake. It used to be using its own engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presto_(browser_engine)

We have seen that a lot. It often ends with an article a lot like this.

That said, many, maybe even most Linux users started Windows users first. So, not everyone writes a snarky article and goes back.

I think a Windows user that is adventurous enough to try Linux is more likely to be pragmatic and open minded about it. They can push through basic issues like the ones raised in this article to get to the real experience underneath. Many of them like what they find enough to stick around.

But we get our fair share Linux sucks articles that are not better than this one.

There is virus protection for Linux if you really want it (both free and paid).

https://www.safetydetectives.com/best-antivirus/linux/

Granular permissioned access for apps from trusted supply chains is better than attempting deny lists based on signatures (AV).

I still use it, but I put way more effort into SLSA, securing containers, flatpaks, and limiting their blow back. From there its keeping up with CVEs in ways that do not create more or break functionality.

I will say A LOT of the Linux software ecosystem is was more secure than Window's default.

People were saying the exact same thing when I first started using Linux in 1999-ish

I don't think a Linux anti virus program would be such a big security win. Phishing is the biggest security threat to most users, and no amount of software can prevent that.

Sure, downloading and running random shit is a concern, but people in that group are a bit of a lost cause. The best solution for that is to harden the OS, prevent running executables through the GUI, or from user folders (I think SELinux could do that), disable sudo on the user account, and only allow installing Flatpaks. The security of Flathub may not be perfect, but it's a smaller attack surface than the whole internet.

But even if you do that, an Indian call center scam is still going to manipulate your grandma into buying Amazon gift cards, so... It's a lost cause.

The click bait headline was a clue.

Yeah, kinda disappointing how superficial this article is

Sigh, please stop using that argument, it is an easy cop out, and you don't actually help your cause by analyzing the real issue.

The real reason why people willingly use Windows is multifaceted and can be boiled down to a few points.

1. It is the defacto standard. If you are going to use a desktop/laptop computer you will probably use Windows, especially at work.
2. Most users know Windows in some capacity, this means that companies have an easier time finding staff than if they used something else, it wouldn't be impossible but it would mean spending more time and money training the staff and causing them to be less productive for longer as they learn the system. This is slowly changing with the rise of web apps, chromebooks and Macs. But still, having IT support a fleet of Linux desktops/laptops when working in a non IT sector would be increadibly wasteful
3. Software, like it or not, Windows has a huge amount of proprietary software dominance, organizations LOVE proprietary software and dislike FOSS for one reason. Liability. This means that they get a number to call, email to contact, a person to yell at, they can deflect complaints and seem like they are a strong decisive company by taking legal action against an external party, and not have the buck stop with themselves.

I am an IT technician, this is what I have seen in the corporate world.

By talking about "brainwashing" you remove most of the actual information that could help you figure out how Linux could be better suited for the masses, and to be frank, using a word like "brainwashing" makes the Linux community seem a bit unhinged/cultish.

Focus on facts, then you can use them to change the actual issue.

No, its mostly because 99% of people dont build their own computers and because 99% of prebuilts/laptops come with Windows preinstalled. Thats literally the only reason. If all devices came with Linux preinstalled, most people would be too lazy to switch and buy a windows license. This would change the market share of Linux which would immediately cause companies to prioritize making their software run on linux. Its really just corporate inertia.

The only real options for the average user are Mac or Windows. Linux just isn't as user friendly, and a lot of the customization and flexibility of Linux is actually a determinant for non technical people.

I'm a technical person and I can't stand Linux as a main driver. Love it for development and as a server, but it can be very janky for UI things.

Or because work requires us to