Dude, I don’t mind your fanfic, but maybe we should keep it to a single subthread? No need to interfere with the conversation elsewhere to theorycraft narratives for your anti-Linux Avengers movie.
Anyway, on whatever morsel of a point there is here, I’m actually going to argue that the sweet spot for Linux feature parity and ease of use was a while ago. Back in the late 00s there was a beautiful moment where the hardware was standardized enough and the user-friendly distros were hassle-free enough that Linux had effective feature parity. Plus Windows was still fairly unstable and hacked-together, so it didn’t look great in side by side comparisons against competitors. The bummer then was that the software compatibility just wasn’t there to capitalize.
These days we have a lot better software parity, but the hardware support and streamlined UX have regressed a bit, partially because GPUs are kind of nuts now and GPU drivers are this gargantuan babel tower of per-game tweaks that needs constant support and display specs are kind of absurd as well. And because laptops are increasingly reliant on custom hardware and software, at least in mainstream brands that often don’t provide explicit Linux support. But also because the Linux community has been weirdly resistant to embracing baseline contemporary functionality, let’s be honest, particularly on the display side. In any case, it’s actually harder to migrate any given piece of kit to a Linux install seamlessly now than it was back then.
That bit of history, incidentally, also answering the first bit, because while Linux has never been marketed quite as aggressively as the paid alternatives, it is certainly no secret mystery. People were aware of it, it was often proposed as the fallback default install if you didn’t want Windows OEM fees and it’s had decades to spread via word of mouth. It’s just not kept up with the way modern computers are put together.
It was marketed. Like I said above, I remember the Ubuntu launch being kind of a big deal and having a bit of messaging muscle behind it. I also have branded Red Hat install CDs in storage that seem to have been some sort of sponsorship or collab, which is a nice historical artifact. One kinda like this.
And then there were dedicated hobby magazines and sections in computing magazines and stuff like that. Most weren’t necessarily affiliated to any one company, but it was a thing you’d see in a magazine rack every now and then.
Obviously nothing on the level of the commercial, paid OS, but there have been multiple times where companies built around Linux did do some concerted promotion.
It is likely a fact that the majority of middle aged computer users have never even heard of Linux, but sure. Because redhat spent a few dollars a year on marketing, that’s definitely an apt comparison. Lmfao, disingenuous is the only word for you.
Look, you can try to reframe what I’m saying into entirely different arguments in your head as much as you want, but as you kept saying reading the previous posts is easy.
I’d be curious to see that poll, though. I’m liking my chances with millenials, honestly.
Just so I’m clear, here, your working hypothesis is that Linux isn’t more popular because people don’t know that it exists? Is that the idea? Like, if you ran ads for it on Youtube or something it’d skyrocket in usage?
Makes two of us, I suppose. But you lost track a bit, that was a genuine question, the subthread where it’s descended into sheer trolling hostility is the other one. I’m asking this genuinely.
As in, you seem to be arguing that the limiting factor for Linux is it has not enough promotion or lacks awareness and nothing else, right? Is that the idea?
Dude, I don’t mind your fanfic, but maybe we should keep it to a single subthread? No need to interfere with the conversation elsewhere to theorycraft narratives for your anti-Linux Avengers movie.
Anyway, on whatever morsel of a point there is here, I’m actually going to argue that the sweet spot for Linux feature parity and ease of use was a while ago. Back in the late 00s there was a beautiful moment where the hardware was standardized enough and the user-friendly distros were hassle-free enough that Linux had effective feature parity. Plus Windows was still fairly unstable and hacked-together, so it didn’t look great in side by side comparisons against competitors. The bummer then was that the software compatibility just wasn’t there to capitalize.
These days we have a lot better software parity, but the hardware support and streamlined UX have regressed a bit, partially because GPUs are kind of nuts now and GPU drivers are this gargantuan babel tower of per-game tweaks that needs constant support and display specs are kind of absurd as well. And because laptops are increasingly reliant on custom hardware and software, at least in mainstream brands that often don’t provide explicit Linux support. But also because the Linux community has been weirdly resistant to embracing baseline contemporary functionality, let’s be honest, particularly on the display side. In any case, it’s actually harder to migrate any given piece of kit to a Linux install seamlessly now than it was back then.
That bit of history, incidentally, also answering the first bit, because while Linux has never been marketed quite as aggressively as the paid alternatives, it is certainly no secret mystery. People were aware of it, it was often proposed as the fallback default install if you didn’t want Windows OEM fees and it’s had decades to spread via word of mouth. It’s just not kept up with the way modern computers are put together.
Lol it’s obviously disingenuous to even say Linux was marketed at all. But being disingenuous is your thing so it makes sense
It was marketed. Like I said above, I remember the Ubuntu launch being kind of a big deal and having a bit of messaging muscle behind it. I also have branded Red Hat install CDs in storage that seem to have been some sort of sponsorship or collab, which is a nice historical artifact. One kinda like this.
And then there were dedicated hobby magazines and sections in computing magazines and stuff like that. Most weren’t necessarily affiliated to any one company, but it was a thing you’d see in a magazine rack every now and then.
Obviously nothing on the level of the commercial, paid OS, but there have been multiple times where companies built around Linux did do some concerted promotion.
It is likely a fact that the majority of middle aged computer users have never even heard of Linux, but sure. Because redhat spent a few dollars a year on marketing, that’s definitely an apt comparison. Lmfao, disingenuous is the only word for you.
Look, you can try to reframe what I’m saying into entirely different arguments in your head as much as you want, but as you kept saying reading the previous posts is easy.
I’d be curious to see that poll, though. I’m liking my chances with millenials, honestly.
Just so I’m clear, here, your working hypothesis is that Linux isn’t more popular because people don’t know that it exists? Is that the idea? Like, if you ran ads for it on Youtube or something it’d skyrocket in usage?
You’re not very good at trolling. Maybe you could try something else now?
Makes two of us, I suppose. But you lost track a bit, that was a genuine question, the subthread where it’s descended into sheer trolling hostility is the other one. I’m asking this genuinely.
As in, you seem to be arguing that the limiting factor for Linux is it has not enough promotion or lacks awareness and nothing else, right? Is that the idea?