Why did Linux fail on the desktop?
I blame Google for destroying the momentum that was building up with native app development with Chrome OS.
Chrome was an embrace-extend-extinguish dick move that could have been prevented if you faggots weren't riding Google's dick so hard.
Other urls found in this thread:
google wanted to distribute an os that would make the user dependend of their infrastructure. linux per se is the exact opposite of corporate dependency.
Never thought of that
aka walled garden
How, exactly, has it "failed" ?
Are you basing that assumption on the overall market share of desktop Linux?
Linux, as a desktop OS, is a niche "hobbyist" OS. The reason the market share is low is due to the number of people that are in the main Linux demographic. One could argue that desktop Linux has an excellent market share penetration if you consider:
Let's say there are 3 billion (fake example numbers) people using desktop computers for home use. Now, of those 3B, let's say 30M use OS X. And let's say Linux grabs 10M. The rest are spread across various versions of Windows and other operating systems. Now, let's say out of the 3B people using desktop computers for home use, 15M are hobbyist programmers and tinkerers. Some of them running *BSD, some running OS X, but about 8M running Linux. That's a more than 50% market share of the target Linux demographic.
Let's face it, Linux isn't for normies. It's just not. It probably never will be, and it's certainly never been marketed that way. It's for people like rms.
So Linux on desktop computers is not a failure. It's a huge success. The problem is, the type of aspie fucks that run Linux are the minority. If there were more of them, Linux would have a greater market share overall
because even the best distros are broken in all sorts of little ways, and most people have at least a few programs they need that are windows/mac only
It failed to "just work". It's just too hard for people with little computer knowledge to use.
>Why did Linux fail on the desktop?
Because it doesn't cater enough to normies.
>youtube.com
What's your programming music Sup Forums?
All this is because application development was diverted from desktop Linux to Chrome OS. If the same investment was made in desktop Linux, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
Huh? I don't know a single person who has a Chromebook.
That's not the point. You may live in a country where it's not viable.
exactly, if Google had put even a little effort into actually producing products for linux instead of making their own, cut down version of linux then they likely would have been more popular, and linux would have more positive (and negative probably) contributions.
>diverted from desktop Linux to Chrome OS
Chrome OS didn't exist prior to 2011 and Linux still had this problem.
10 years from now nothing will change.
I love this attitude, let's shift the blame onto others why people don't want to use the OS.
Google did the same shit with Android. All those Android apps could have been native Linux apps.
Embrace Linux: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
Extend Linux: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the 'simple' standard.
Extinguish Linux: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.
t. Google Internet Defense Force
It killed smartphone Linux, but not really desktop Linux
It killed both. All the billions poured into application development could have benefited native Linux as a whole, not just Google's walled gardens.
Many such cases.
SAD.
Sup Forums is unwilling to face this reality
is this porn for curryniggers
...
linux is just a kernel and without quality supporting applications you will never see it anywhere except servers. android took the kernel and built an app ecosystem around it and look at how quickly it became the dominant smartphone os. without tools like time machine or file history and without good apps like adobe cs or office why would anyone choose linux? it's always been the apps.
GNU+Linux has several terrific desktop flavors.
Means absolutely nothing
Microsoft brought Ubuntu to Windows 10 because they know it offers superior tools for developers. We've already won.
No you didn't, they merely took control over Linux and are using it as a tool until they develop something better, or at least advertised as better to normies. So you're currently losing even more. You would have "won" if majority of people used Linux and used windows only in a vm or as wine until devs started releasing all popular software to Linux as well.
Linux could only become a full replacement if someone who didn't care about copyright laws made a distro with a hybrid linux/NT kernel and contained all relevant windows files, being compatible with both systems. Or if wine let you use all windows files and software dependencies directly from a windows partition so it could offer flawless emulation, which wouldn't be illiegal as you own windows in this case. The entire FOSS system is just full of cowards who are afraid of corporations.
FOSS ecosystem*
i has not failed, it just hasn't caught up yet
The FOSS community doesn't want to deal with lengthy legal disputes over shit that doesn't matter. We have everything from image manipulation programs to CAD software and an office suit. We also have better security and better transparency. I haven't used Microsoft products in years and I haven't suffered one bit. This "no professional software" meme needs to die. Microsoft might think they're controlling GNU/Linux but the GPL prevents that, and all code they decide to change and redistribute must be open sourced. Microsoft loses, whether they know it or not.
>I blame Google for destroying the momentum that was building up with native app development with Chrome OS.
OK retard. Very few people who use Chrome OS used Linux before Chromebooks came out. Just because people are buying Chromebooks now, doesn't mean that the market for Linux apps would be bigger if Chromebooks didn't come out.
Works just fine for my needs (torrents, media server)
I really don't understand why Valve didn't make a workable OS. Instead they went for the game console approach. Absolutely retarded.
It's not that I don't agree with you, but I just don't see why the FOSS community doesn't use aggressive shilling like Microsoft and why not use piracy to their advantage as Microsoft did by not illegalizing pirated windows copies (which they will do in future anyway since w10 apparently scans your system for pirated software already).
Everyone pirates windows for home use, a hacked together "illegal" and improved windows emulator on Linux would be a very good way to get pirates into Linux since that would mean no more potential malware activators and piratebay torrents, and it could be anonymously distributed. If that's not an option then the only 2 things that remain are wine improvements and virtualbox devs including an automated PCI passthrough process, which would take years to implement. By that time it could be too late and Microsoft could be in the "extinguish" phase.
>but I just don't see why the FOSS community doesn't use aggressive shilling like Microsoft
The FOSS community doesn't have enough money to hire "viral marketers".
Chromebooks are crippled. If they invested in desktop Linux they would have had a shitload more market share and better apps.
You don't need money if you do it yourself.
Chromebooks are intentionally crippled. Their target market is schools who let elementary school students use them... If Google pushed a more advanced operating system, it'd defeat the point of what they were trying to do.
You'd still need manpower and a reason for people to do it other than ideological reasons. People who would shill FOSS for ideological reasons are few and far between.
Proprietary software is going to dominate most markets because it's just better at being able to monetize its development.
The noob distros do a more or less fine job at "just working", certainly not any worse than windows. The problem is that people do not want to switch operating system and do not see any point in doing so (plus the installation, as opposed to the usage, is still very technical). They don't know that a computer doesn't necessarily have to spend 2 hours every three days doing upgrades they never benefit from without their consent followed by a reboot they cannot stop.
>potential malware activators
But Windows comes with a script built in (as of 8.1 at least) that you can run to infinitely reset the 30 day trial period. I use this on a gaming PC of mine that runs Windows 7.
Also Microsoft doesn't go after pirates because they want people using Windows. They want people using it because they get more money from the ads and from selling user data like they've been doing since Vista.
Also making a fucked up hybrid OS out of NT, Linux, and GNU won't work because the NT kernel is closed source. There would be shitloads of RE to do and all kinds of patches, half assed compatibility layers, and duct tape. I like the idea but it wouldn't work even on a technical level. Then the MS lawyers will come after you because you're eating into their ad/data mining revenue.
ie. Google hates native Linux. They only like walled gardens and cucks keep supporting them
>Google hates native Linux.
Because native Linux doesn't do well in the consumer market.
>They only like walled gardens and cucks keep supporting them
Google is only responding to the market. Blame the consumers, not Google.
> I really don't understand why Valve didn't make a workable OS
Because it was easier to just make sure Steam works on Ubuntu. Besides, they are still working on SteamOS, they're just doing it in Valve time. Late last year they got SteamVR working in SteamOS
>Why did Linux fail on the desktop?
What desktop? During the 90's and even the early 00's, Linux users were too busy having a bitterdick fight of KDE vs Gnome instead of producing a desktop standard. Now that Google's Andriod owns the end user experience for the most part, both are irrelevant.
did it fail? works just fine for me
it's not a marketed product like windows, it's mostly developed by users who want to use it
it pretty much cant fail as long as there are developers willing to work on it.
post more beauties
Google asslickers will defend this
...
Nogames is probably the primary factor preventing wider adoption of linux. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the kind of person who might be willing to try and use linux do usually play videogames on pc.
Also the fact that microsoft got windows on every school and business computer in existence, and every prebuilt laptop or desktop computer in the world almost without exception.
Do Indian girls date outside of their race?
Goddamn, to think I would ever see this much denial on Sup Forums outside of Sup Forums.
Linux is for power users, which is a tiny minority of users. People like convenience over freedom, security and privacy (if they say otherwise, it often because they think they do. Look at what people DO, not what they SAY). So desktop Linux as a no go from the start.
all girls do so long as you're attractive
Damn
>power users
The currently favoured perjorative for Indians is "pajeets". You're showing your age.
Problem is who the fuck would use a Google Desktop OS when every single product of them stores data about you. You will literally be working for google without getting paid for it when using their system.
7.5/10
It has a limit, I believe you can only do it 3 or 4 times.
Cuz it sucks.
Lol
Fuck Google
The word is "pejorative", from the Latin "pejor" ("worse"). You're showing your stupidity.