Why Linux failed?

It's the most complete software pack you can get legally and FOR FREE. What happened?

Other urls found in this thread:

s.4cdn.org/image/skeletons/10.gif
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It only "failed" on the desktop (even though it's the best desktop OS), and for the same reason all the other operating systems like BeOS, Amiga, and OS/2 did:

Microsoft got Windows pre-installed on almost every PC. That's literally the ONLY significant reason.

>poor marketing and advertising
>nerd stigma
>unfriendly unintuitive interfaces
>reliance on command line to complete basic tasks
>overwhelming choice of distros
>unfriendly elitist attitude of established users
>unstable software
>poor aesthetic design

All these reasons discourage newbies

The human population isn't ready yet. When the average IQ reaches 130 the year of the Linux desktop will happen.

Truth be told multiuser interfaces like these seen on UNIX based OSes aren't really suited for desktops.

They were made by servers.

It failed for the same reason every Windows competitor on the desktop did. Because Microsoft moved early and cornered the market.

MAC OS gets to have significant usage on the desktop compared to Linux only because Apple produces it's own desktops.

It's not the only reason.

People are willing to pay for support. One could just pirate music, movies, and video games if they just bothered to set up a torrent and maybe learn to use VPN if they're worried about getting caught, yet most would rather pay or use ad-ridden streaming services. Even when it comes to the enterprise market where Linux based distros are competitive, paid versions of Ubuntu and Red Hat are dominant because companies are willing to pay for official troubleshooting support even if the product itself is technically free to use or copy for themselves.

It comes down to passing the buck when things go bad. Using Linux, you've only got either yourself or some random nerd on the internet to blame when something fucks up. And you can only rely on yourself to fix it after taking the time to research on your own and either be clever enough to solve it soon or lucky enough to find the answer online that also works. For a hobbyist that's not a problem, and even a major plus because they don't care for customer support hotlines, but for a corporation that's someone's job on the line. The IT department would have no one to blame but themselves when things go bad, and nothing to appease clients, board officers, and shareholders waiting impatiently for a fix except a promise that the IT guys, who they pay to keep this from happening in the first place, will figure it out eventually.

But if you're on Windows, or using some other software with paid support, you've got plausible deniability and bureaucratic shielding. You can shift that responsibility to another company and the bean counters are more agreeable because there's a clear paper trail and the money they spent for this very reason doesn't feel like a waste.

>People are willing to pay for support.
Then go pay for someone to support you. There are programmers willing to work to build you stuff for $50 per hour if that's the kind of support you need. Same goes for IT experts who can teach you about how to operate something or how to interpret something.

Personaly I have used Linux for years on my server at home and wouldn't dream of spending a fortune on a Windows server platform for the job. After all in the main it just is a web, file and mail server, with some databases. Don't need Windows for that.

However I've tried, and failed, many times to replace Windows with whatever the current favourite flavour of linux is. It's all very nice in many ways, but there is far too much that I depend on in Windows (applications that is), and a lot of things I like in Windows itself even if it doesn't look pretty.

My major beef with Linux on the desktop is lack of hardware support. Especially with laptops. Yeah, yeah, it's volunteers, they don't have time, "go and write the drivers yourself then!", etc. Well fine. But don't go around claiming it can replace Windows for everyone, because it can't.

There's a reason why Macs "just work" (i.e. hardware control). Likewise, there's a reason why Windows works on a vast amount of hardware.

When Joe Public can just slap on Ubuntu or whatever on ANY brand PC in the world and it works fine with all their hardware, *then* linux is ready for the desktop. It's no use telling people to buy Linux compatible hardware either. That's not going to encourage them at all (especially if it costs more).

It should be no nonsense install that is just install and go with all hardware supported, no messing with configuration files, packages, drivers, having to rely on nerdy linux forums for information, and GOD FORBID... recompiling the damn kernel!!!

Doesn't mean linux hasn't got a place though, and I have to say the majority of what I run on Windows is open source software that has mostly sprung from linux.

Oh, and as a developer, it's very hard to leave the world of Visual Studio and the delights of .Net development.

So was NT.

>However I've tried, and failed, many times to replace Windows with whatever the current favourite flavour of linux is. It's all very nice in many ways, but there is far too much that I depend on in Windows (applications that is), and a lot of things I like in Windows itself even if it doesn't look pretty.

I mean I agree. The only reason I don't use Linux exclusively is due to Adobe Illustrator and gaymes. It's just that there's a reason why all those programs are exclusively Windows. Because Microsoft cornered the market in the 90s. Cause and effect and all.

>When Joe Public can just slap on Ubuntu or whatever on ANY brand PC in the world and it works fine with all their hardware, *then* linux is ready for the desktop. It's no use telling people to buy Linux compatible hardware either. That's not going to encourage them at all (especially if it costs more).

This already happens with Ubuntu tbfh.

>Oh, and as a developer, it's very hard to leave the world of Visual Studio and the delights of .Net development.

See reply to first quote. And yes I agree that for a .net Dev investing on a Linux desktop would mostly be a waste of time (before anyone mentions MonoDevelop, it's just not there. Not for large-scale commercial purposes anyway).

That's certainly an option for individual people, the equivalent of the handyman they know who can fix anything for half the price of a garage or service company. And it does work for smaller businesses as well in the form of contractors, but the higher up you go the more attractive more corporate partners become.

You can sue a big company for hundreds of thousands of dollars in the event their fuck-up and failure to service your problems. You can't really get the same compensation from a smaller, especially independent, outfit.

It failed because the people who use it in their operating systems are failures who don't know anything. Shit being constantly broken and looking like shit is not the key to market share.

this guy gets it

I wish people would stop falling for the "If [any OS] can do [task] then it would beat Windows" meme. Much better and cheaper platforms much better than Linux couldn't do it, so what makes you think Linux can?

The issue was never cost or quality, but simply that it's not Windows. Windows IS "computer". It's like that joke "Turn off that Nintendo!" except it's entirely accurate.

Microsoft has a monopoly, that means it makes the rules. It's like playing with the King. If he says that move doesn't count, then it doesn't count, and the only moves that do count are the ones that make him win.

So literally never, as 100 IQ is defined as the average at the moment of measurement

No he doesn't. Nothing will ever be good enough to replace Windows. These are all excuses and reasons people have been giving for literally decades, even while better alternatives were available that were left by the wayside to be gobbled up.

If you're a big company with special IT requirements, you can always get your support from a consulting company who makes it their job to become experts on your specific problems. These consulting firms get paid big money to achieve anything you want that's feasible within a certain budget.

People don't want to replace what they have because they simply don't want to. If they wanted to, then they will invest their resources into making it happen. They obviously do not want this.

They're all true for linux though, which really doesn't help its chances. Believe me, I've been wanting to use linux for years but every time it just disappoints me so much and has so many flaws I can't convince myself to keep it around

Yeah no, not always. See

>It failed because the people who use it in their operating systems are failures who don't know anything.

That's not a really good approach. The whole point of a Operating System is to serve people as a tool.

In which case the decision was already made to go with Windows, Apple, or paid RedHat/Ubuntu because all of them have professional documentation and a consulting firm never has to embarrass themselves with 'PM'd you the fix :)' and other amateur nonsense. People are paying a premium for a reason, and it's only dumb at the consumer level.

The only reason Windows runs things now, is because there was no real competition in the PC gaming market during the 90s. Once Win95 started appearing on every Computer, it became the standard. Linux was too young and Apple was in a horrible slump since they got rid of Steve. Gaming needs a bigger surge on Linux and more people will turn away from windows.

No they fucking wont. People like you have been saying this for at least 20 years.

Nothing will be good enough because it's Microsoft who decides what is "good enough," and Microsoft have decided that Microsoft products are "good enough".

You're missing the point. How "true" it might be doesn't matter.

>muh gaming

Oh, fuck off back to Sup Forums.

So you're saying that people won't replace their Microsoft system because they actually want to replace it? Are you ok?

>it's the most complete software pack you can get legally and for FREE
but what about Open/FreeBSD and the ports tree?

Most software has been designed to work on Windows systems as executables. Microsoft has a monopoly on prebuilt HP, Dell, and ASUS systems.

Be as salty as you want, a lot of people bought computers for gaming only.

So you're saying that general consulting firms are unable to provide the services that Windows, Apple and Red Hat do? I certainly trust your IT expertise about the world of consulting!!!

No. People wont replace their Microsoft system because the game is rigged in Microsoft's favor.

Someone decides to replace their Windows and MS Office set up with anything else -- it doesn't matter what, so stop thinking it does -- how do you expect them to do business with their clients who all use Microsoft products?

Microsoft have been known to break compatibility with rival systems in order to assert their dominance, so see how quickly they do that here, and then that much better system is dead. Again.

Microsoft have a monopoly, which means, by the very nature of the term, they are the ones who decide what everyone does.

>a lot

Not even 1/10 as many who bought them for office use.

I'm saying that people won't replace their Microsoft system because their own will stops them. If they changed their will, then they would be investing their own resources to make it happen. It's obvious that this doesn't happen so therefore, they have no will to move from a Microsoft system.

>What happened?
Failed to attract normies and thus failed to attract big companies like Adobe etc

I'm saying that even consulting firms prefer to work with all of those operating systems over anything else for their professional level documentation and support.

>I certainly trust your-
Yeah, no. This has nothing to do with TRUST ME MY DAD WORKS AT NINTENDO. Find me a Fortune500 company running ArchLinux or TempleOS, or a consulting firm that ever recommends moving to anything other than a professionally maintained operating system.

It didn't. It's on its rise. Sup Forums and all others places have to keep shilling for Linux. I started because of Sup Forums and I don't regret anything. My PC-knowledge got way better and it's much fun to learn new. Also, newer games will tend to run on Linux more because of Steam(OS) etc. I'm playing L4D2, Half Life 2 and Euro Truck Simulator without any restrictions on my Linux machine.

We just have to keep shilling and be patient. Linux becomes better every day. (And Windows get worse, hehe.)

I agree for the most part but let's take a look at the mobile market. Even with all the marketshare of Android phones, IOs is more desirable and some people turn to him as a second/ third phone.

I don't maintain other people's businesses so I can't tell you about them. What I can tell you is that you seem to believe that general consulting firms are not professionals who cannot be paid to maintain operating systems.

All we need is for MS to royally fuck up Windows 10 enough that the normies get sick of using it and then we can lure them in with Solus and Ubuntu

But even if they did have the will, they have no alternatives to go to.

"I'm going to change!" says one office defiantly.

"We're not," says literally everyone else.

"Well, I guess I wont change then," says that first office who doesn't want to go out of business.

And who would ever waste their time or money creating an alternative that has no chance?

it only failed on the desktop because it's a piece of fragmented shit of a project that can't settle on a universal distribution or package of software that does everything a desktop OS should properly do at a minimum. instead, it provides a large assortment of shitty distributions and software that excel at one or two things but blow shit at every other aspect. it's really good for servers and other stuff though. also the general linux desktop userbase sucks ass, but that's minor.

Like what happened with Windows 95, and launch Windows 98, and Windows ME, and Windows Vista, and Windows 8?

Stop being so stupid to think quality was ever the issue.

.exe files

>Solus
fuck off and die Kevin

>But even if they did have the will, they have no alternatives to go to.
This is where you're wrong. As long as it doesn't involve proprietary data, anything is possible. As soon as it involves proprietary data, then you're looking for a needle in a haystack. Remember: they actually chose the present when they willingly bound their whole business to the whims of a single software company! Therefore if they want changes, they need the will to sacrifice the bounds that keep them chained from freedom.

Defined "failed". Because if you look at anything except desktops and muh games, it's pretty damn successful.

>>poor aesthetic design
Explain, I thought Linux is great for aesthetic autists

They didn't choose it, any more than you'd "choose" to give your money to a man holding you at gunpoint.

It was literally as bad as "want to actually run a business that profits? Better use Microsoft products." And it still is.

I'm glad your not making the "free market will fix it" meme argument, but the idealistic one needs to end as well.

No, you can't tell me that because what I know is that consulting firms are professionals who will do their jobs, but will prefer to work with Ubuntu or Red Hat over Gentoo and their clients will decide on them if they're not already on Windows/Apple for their particular software needs before they ever hire consultants. You've missed my point entirely. None of these people are idiots, they're just moving down the path of least resistance and manhours. A company that can't afford several days of downtime while their IT department shifts into troubleshooting and recovery will favor a company or contractor whose sole job is to fix their problems as fast as possible, and those companies and contractors favor the use of these bigger operating systems because they can get feedback and support at that same pace. Each one could be privately communicating with God at home through their OS, but when it's time to work they put down their Sup Forumshats.

>poor marketing and advertising
>nerd stigma
>overwhelming choice of distros
>unfriendly elitist attitude of established users
correct

>unfriendly unintuitive interfaces
>reliance on command line to complete basic tasks
>unstable software
>poor aesthetic design
incorrect

>It was literally as bad as "want to actually run a business that profits? Better use Microsoft products."
This is false. People made the choice to use Microsoft products. They could have chosen to invest in freedom, but they decided that Microsoft's products were easier. This is the present that they chose.

Yes, you got the joke. Congratulations.

>They could have chosen to invest in freedom

No they couldn't. non-MS spreadsheets and word processors saved in transparent formats like PostScript, or where visible with a button press like in Wordstar.

So they could be read by MS programs, but MS programs were a propriety binary and as such could only be read by those who had the specifications to support it with their software.

So if you wanted to talk with other companies and clients, you had to use MS, because as soon as it reached even a tiny majority of the market (which they did by being super cheap, even selling at a loss), then it creates a feedback loop and it's their way or no way.

Ok, actually it's not like Microsoft is a boogeyman that decides what people use.

It's more like plain, simple common sense for the most part.

It's easier and simpler to install everything on Windows, from periphericals to software, everything has clear instructions, top quality, professional software and games. You name it. Everything is available.

For work or play. Even the best FOSS software is available for Windows, also with Mac.

What are you talking about?

If I negotiate a consulting firm to support me in my specific IT needs and they decide they are capable of delivering that support according to budgets we negotiate, I'm going to get that support. If I demand up front that I want Gentoo as the basis of my IT infrastructure, then they will become Gentoo experts in no time at all. If I think that my Gentoo experience leaves more to be desired, there will be a new project that will improve my business Gentoo experience.

All of this support happens because they believe that they can support my business within the budget that we have negotiated; I have paid a capable expert to support me in my demand for Linux and I don't need any specific skills on my own to make it happen.

Google and IBM are running Linux, don't know which distro though.

Investing in freedom means developing and improving the software you demand for your work. It is well understood that since the beginning, Microsoft designs their software to lock people into their proprietary formats. If people wanted freedom in business, they'd be investing their money into developing software to work as they demand it and also demanding their business partners to avoid software that's designed to keep businesses in subjection. Well it is not their will to do this. People intentionally choose not to have freedom. Today, people can choose to have freedom, but they are simply not interested. This is why "Linux has failed".

>If people wanted freedom in business, they'd be investing their money into developing software to work as they demand it and also demanding their business partners to avoid software that's designed to keep businesses in subjection.
And then they'd go bankrupt because their business partners would choose to work with someone else instead.

you missed his point

Exactly, that's why AIX and Solaris based businesses have gone bankrupt. Everybody knows that non-Windows business are bankrupt. It's impossible to see a business today that relies on them.

>It's the most complete software pack you can get legally and FOR FREE.
Linux is just a kernel.

Indeed. As much as people hate on Ubuntu, it's made Linux accessable to people that would never think of abandoning Windows. It has more momentum now than ever before.

>My major beef with Linux on the desktop is lack of hardware support.
This was a valid argument 10 years ago. It's widely known now that Linux has better hardware support than Windows.

I installed Windows 7 on a machine that is a couple of years old, not bleeding edge hardware, basically from the time Windows 7 was actively developed. I had to go on a different computer and download the drivers for the network card. Then I had to download drivers for the video and sound card as well. Out of box I had 1024x768 resolution on a 1440p monitor.

I installed Debian 8 stable (jessie) dual boot on the same machine, the network adapter was recognized during installation and when I booted into the system for the first time I had 1440p resolution.

>It should be no nonsense install that is just install and go with all hardware supported
Yes, that is what Linux is today.

It's very customizable for the individual but mainstream OSes are so inoffensive in their design that they're basically one size fits all.

Linux works on the desktop.
90% of linux threads are about it not working.

Are you really that fucking dense?

Linux fails for the same reason that communism fails. People want to get something out of their work. The only parts of linux which are not failing are the ones paid for by big corporations--and they don't do it for free. They sell something based off the work they do. FOSS is just a big fucking lie.

nothing happened. it's not normie friendly. it never has been and probably never will. who cares?

redhat >$2B

Linux devs should write every driver for hardware they don't know.
That's a unbeatable therefore stupid double standard against Linux. If you are really a linux user with some developer background, you should have a clue how driver development works.

Ahah it wasn`t a joke ahah you just made a mistake ahah

Kek. Linux is everwhere except the dying desktop market segment.

>top quality
I have an MS driver for a mobile phone that can literally destroy any install. It's official and supported. Same hardware just werks with *buntu kernel. There goes the "top quality".

I want ARM desktop nao!

NT wasn't ever designed to be connected to via dumb terminals as UNIX was. From the very beginning you had NT Server and NT Workstation.

Nothing happened. People just try using linux like they use windows. But linux is not windows as GNU is not UNIX. You have different paradigms. I use linux on all of my machines for developing, administration tasks, backups, server-only services and everything else besides music, art and games. That's what specialization was meant for. A coutry like Netherlands can't export Oil. And a country like Saudi Arabia can't export water. Ever tried developing python or ruby on windows? It sucks. Httpd and ftpd on windows sucks. Same as any image manipulating sucks on linux.

>poor marketing and advertising
Agree, there's not a lot of marketing for most linux distros on desktops except for chromesOS. Both chromeOS and android sells like pancakes which proves the point.

>nerd stigma
There has been a huge smear campaign from companies like microsoft and considering most people was instructed on how to use windows is normal that other operative systems will feel alien to them similarly to windows on phones.

>unfriendly unintuitive interfaces
Disagree. I have relatives and friends that doesn't know anything about computers and they're using linux fine. In fact their requests for support are much less frequent and they're happy.

>reliance on command line to complete basic tasks
This is an exaggerated claim in the case of linux and it's just as bad on the windows case. There's graphical interfaces for most things. Even if true this point is moot because most users doesn't fix their own problems, they ask other people to fix it for them.

>overwhelming choice of distros
This is a contradiction: you first talked about poor marketing and advertising. For this reason most new users doesn't search for "linux", but well known names like "ubuntu" or "mint".

Interestingly the so called "windows power users" are the ones who get overwhelmed by the amount of distros.

>unfriendly elitist attitude of established users
If you're implying other users are better see this thread first: you literally cannot criticize microsoft without being called names.

>unstable software
Depends on the distro and the definition of unstable. My experience with ubuntu LTS versions has been good, much better than windows in fact.

>poor aesthetic design
I disagree but i cannot prove you wrong because i cannot prove tastes wrong. The fact is that, even if you don't like the defaults, most DEs provides much better customization than windows at least. IMO windows is the one which aesthetics are mediocre at best but that's just my opinion.

>90% of linux threads are about it not working.
It's the same about other operative systems tho, and it's fanboys are way more aggressive to the point they create threads talking about how other operative systems are thrash and theirs are awesome just to compensate the threads they don't like.

"""average"""

>>poor marketing and advertising
>>nerd stigma
>>reliance on command line to complete basic tasks
>>unfriendly elitist attitude of established users


These are the most prominent.

18% of the Netherlands' total export is oil.

It really didn't just take Android into account, take the whole internet infrastructure and data centers.
I really don't care about the desktop, Ubuntu just werks with my hardware, plus I get better battery life on my laptop compared to Windows anyways.
If I ever need Windows only software I use a VM.
The "year of the Linux desktop" meme seems more like a case of critical mass than anything else.

Because you failed.

>And then they'd go bankrupt because their business partners would choose to work with someone else instead.
Pretty sure this is what happened to windows phone.

it became the most widely used server software in the history of humanity

No, it's because Windows is user-friendly out of the box and it just works. Linus is none of that, at least most of its distros weren't when Windows 98 or XP came out.

the problem was it had no mayor corporate backing to enforce a standard, support the software, and develop more user friendly interfaces.

as it was it was only being developed by nerds that wanted to do their own thing, no one would pay to support, and didn't need it to be user friendly

>as it was it was
What is RHEL. They give support for workstation too. For soho shit, no one a need pajeet in a callcenter to say reboot it.
s.4cdn.org/image/skeletons/10.gif

Kek, this. Own your mistakes, retards.

Most made their choice without any knowledge of freedom

>NSA botnet
>Intel botnet
>systemd botnet
>multiple cryptographic subsystem bugs in place for a decade before anybody noticed
>absurd focus on cramming new options and features into the kernel, even point releases are filled with buggy new features
>source code is now several hundred megabytes, much of it ancient, unmaintained, and probably dysfunctional
>total failure incoming for embedded, dropping 32-bit support and every release gets fatter and performs worse on embedded class hardware
>license is cancer
>hostile to hardware manufacturers
>bloated c compiler
I could go on.

He didn't make one

What is it?
Asking for a friend

It was intentionally sabotaged by those who want it to remain special and keep the normies out.

Because, let's face it, it wasn't made by a company that offers support and has an actual team of professional programmers. Linux was made by an amateur by himself, then other pieces were added by other programmers working in their free time.

It's an OS made by hobbyists for hobbyists. That's why it's free. If it cost money, almost nobody would use it. It already has a market share close to zero, if you charged money for that, maybe a few companies would use it for some weird cases.

The reason it caught on servers was because the success of Apache, most likely, and the fact that Apache was also free. It made webhosting really cheap, compared to if you had to use a Sun server with some flavour of Unix.

Me too, but only because I'm a poorfag who has no space for a normal desktop.

...

BECAUSE LINUX IS FOR FUCKING PEDOS

>made by servers
software for servers, made by servers
kek