This was written about 8 years ago. Do you feel the Linux landscape has objectively improved? Why? Why not?
Wow, 2015. Back when they had to hire actual humans to write bullshit like that.
Why Isn't Linux Mainstream? 5 Flaws That Need Fixing
With that, the author implies that it's of utmost importance to make Linux mainstream. Is it? I don't know and I'm not assuming.
- The Landscape Evolves Too Quickly
Not a flaw.
For example, look at the biggest name in desktop Linux: Ubuntu. They release a new version every six months where each version is named after the year and month of release (e.g. 14.10, 15.04, 15.10, etc). Contrast that with Windows (every 3-5 years) and OS X (every 1-2 years).
LTS. Debian Stable.
Stopped reading here because the author is clearly ignorant on what he's talking about.
Yup, as is also evidenced by this part: "What about all of the distros unrelated to Ubuntu? You've got the well-known names like Debian..."
Shit site. Would not let me view it due to not being able to fingerprint me
Perhaps a better question is: asking why Apple isn't mainstream?
Linux almost always needs to be installed, whereas Apple is plug n' play. Plus Linux has a reputation of being much more complicated than it actually is.
The disparity between the proportion of iMac sales vs the people who could afford an iMac is rather enormous, but I have this idea that for iPhones and Androids, this is reversed.
I find that conundrum, assuming it's true, kinda interesting.
I think that 5 flaws are actually the 5 advantages of linux. Aren’t they?
it's impossible to keep up with all of the changes
Literally not true. It's all handled for you. You could use a stable system like Debian or Gentoo for years without updating or only getting security patches or use a rolling system and get all the updates easily. No one says you've gotta reinstall your system all the time. Every distro has some way to keep up with updates. It's not like you've gotta compile every program yourself and pull the git repo every few days or reinstall your OS every year.
Way Too Many Choices
Linux's biggest obstacle is the paradox of choice
If you are scared of the options available for Linux, you are ignorant. It's understandable some people get anxiety when presented with too many equal options, but the thing is they have to be equal options. This is not the case in the Linux world. The options are all different. You as a user will want different things than other users. You may not have thought about what you want, but you do have wants. You have an idea of how you want to use your computer. It's a matter of doing a Google search to find what option provides your choice. It's not like choosing between 5 ice cream flavors you all like; it's like choosing what to eat between ice cream, vomit, feces, a rock, and a block of wood. There's a clear right choice. If you really believe that there are an overwhelming amount of choices of Linux, you are simply ignorant of the most basic UX differences. Like, you haven't even tried to compare. You just heard "there are 2 things" and panicked.
I'm really tired of this stupid myth of too much fragmentation in Linux that gets passed around. There's a reason for the fragmentation; it's not arbitrary, so it doesn't hurt to have it. We're talking bare minimum looking stuff up or asking a question.
Why? Because Linux is high maintenance.
Only true if you mess with stuff. If you're a newcomer and just want stuff to work. Pick some common, stable OS like Ubuntu, use flatpaks or snaps, and it will just work.
I did nothing out of the ordinary -- yet somehow it ended up breaking my desktop. The result? Neither Unity nor Gnome worked properly, so I went back to Windows to cool off... and haven't been back to Linux since.
Ah okay, this article was written nearly a decade ago. That checks out. There were several significant improvements to Linux around 5 years ago or so.
But also, "nothing out of the ordinary?" Installing a totally new desktop environment is "nothing out of the ordinary?" It's something you can't even do on Mac and Windows!
Software Quality Is Mostly Sub-Par
Just untrue. There are tons of fantastic FOSS apps out there with better UX than I get even from proprietary apps. Another myth that has 0 Google searching behind it. I mean look at the GNOME apps. They're all really really good for the most part.
This probably also comes from the age of the article too. A lot of that came like 5 or so years ago. There were some big pushes.
There are some important proprietary apps that are unavailable with no great alternatives like Photoshop, that's fair, but for FOSS apps that are just trying to do what they want to do, there's some with great UI.
I've summarised the article as best I could: "Waaaah, waaaah, waaaah!"
