Who is Linux NOT for?

[Raginryuu]

So LTT had several videos "recently" of how great linux has become over the years as well as how great it is compared to Windows or macOS or whatever. I have also seen many articles online of the benefits of going Linux than the tranditional Windows  OS.

So it brings me to my question. Although Linux isn't mainstream and that popular (yet?).

Who is Linux not for??

[Radium_Angel]

Just now, Raginryuu said:

Who is Linux not for??

There is an old saying "Linux is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are."

 

You need to be comfortable doing troubleshooting. If all your hardware is natively supported, you are good to go, but heaven help you if it's not...

Also, mainstream software doesn't exist on a level like in the Windows world (All of Adobe, for example. Quickbooks, AutoCAD.) so you need to get used to alternatives that may, frankly, suck rocks.

 

 

[Nano Adam]

7 minutes ago, Raginryuu said:

So LTT had several videos "recently" of how great linux has become over the years as well as how great it is compared to Windows or macOS or whatever. I have also seen many articles online of the benefits of going Linux than the tranditional Windows  OS.

So it brings me to my question. Although Linux isn't mainstream and that popular (yet?).

Who is Linux not for??

I would say linux is not for the closed mind people. As you have to be very open to changes if you are deciding to switch to linux, since in Linux you cannot be like: "Why doesn't linux to this thing that Windows has, this is stupid". Instead you have to be willing to change if you switch to Linux. Also Linux is not for those who rely on Windows applications that don't run on Linux, maybe your job requires the app, then Linux is great for like a second device, but for your first it might not be so great. 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

as @Radium_Angel mentioned, it's a really smooth experience if your hardware is supported. 

 

but if it's not, prepare for commandline hell. 

 

basically, if you want to use linux you need to accept the fact that you will need the commandline and lots of documentation, and you need to spend time to get the setup perfectly working how you want it. 

 

 

there is also the issue of companies being buttheads and not releasing stuff on linux, so prepare to miss software if you use anything adobe or microsoft office, among other industrial standards. 

[Guest]

Also 99% of people who don't have the time or knowledge to debug when something goes wrong and want something that just works.

[eeeee1]

people who dont have time or patience to learn and get freaky with the command line at certain times

[PorkishPig]

Here are a few scenarios I can think of on the top of my head:

• I have never seen a graphic artist or editor use a build of Linux as their daily driver as of yet. There are no mainstream professional editing suites that support Linux natively. PlayOnLinux does work with Adobe Creative Suite for the casual user, though you'll held back by lackluster support on CS6.
• Most IT departments will still prefer Windows or Mac deployments due to the management software that is available, let it be Active Directory or Open Directory. Sure, there are projects like NethServer as a Linux substitute, but it is far from a drop-in replacement.
• The average user will go to a help desk when something goes wrong. Getting support will be made increasingly difficult when many help desks do not have the training to support Linux users.

Edited July 26, 2020 by PorkishPig
Rewording

[NZgamer]

People who use the Adobe suite, people that play games rely on EasyAntiCheat

[Nena Trinity]

Gamers and people who cannot SUDO their way out of a wet towel...

[PlayStation 2]

People who have a life. _/s

Eh, on a very serious note, it's really for people who are willing to learn how to troubleshoot things, sometimes to a rather serious degree, or don't really have a use for Windows. I couldn't daily drive it as I use far too much shit that's Windows-specific that I'm not about to learn how to make work using Wine or something. 

It mostly worked alright when I had it on my desktop, but again, all I can really do is web browse and play games on most given Linux distros. I love to dig through game files (especially with PS2 games) and it's just much more difficult to do so when a lot of that stuff is made for Windows.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, Raginryuu said:

Who is Linux not for??

Linux is for people who like power. A its CLI is very powerful. So Power users. Also Linux is great as a server OS. Even as a desk top OS Linux is pretty great. For example you issue two commands on the command line in Ubuntu and you literally update your entire system (OS, Drivers and Software). 

 

1 hour ago, Raginryuu said:

Although Linux isn't mainstream

It kinda is. Last I seen Linux accounts for many of the web servers out on the internet. Further more Android OS has Linux code in it, or at least it did at one time. Back in the day I know Linksys the router maker used Linux code in its firmware. Thats why Open source firmware exists like DDWRT. 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

1 hour ago, NZgamer said:

people that play games rely on EasyAntiCheat

i believe there is a beta version of wine that'll run it but don't quote me on that at all, i heard that from someone on discord so super unreliable information. 

[Wild Penquin]

My few opinions / notes, in addition to already mentioned very good points in this thread:

 

Linux is not for people who do not have a reason to switch. If they have a reason to switch - i.e. something they do not like in Windows (or OS X) - they should think and do some research, if Linux is a match to that desire/need.

 

Linux is not for people who expect some kind of drop-in replacement for Windows (or OS X). Linux is not that. There are benefits in changing to Linux, but there are downsides, too. A user should do some research and think about their computer usage, and then choose a suitable OS keeping that usage in mind.

 

Linux is not for computer illiterate or those who can not or do not want to learn more advanced usage. You need to be able to search and read documentation and use command line to use Linux; at least in almost every use case. Linux can still be useful for regular users in internet cafés and similar situations, if someone else is the maintainer, but if you are the maintainer, then.... if you are not a power user, you will soon become one. Or notice Linux (distributions) are not for you, when you encounter some problems.

 

It's a whole different world (in OS space), because the philosophy and software development field is different. For Windows and OS X, there are big corporations behind them and the OS components are very homogenic. With Linux distributions, there sure is some corporations also supporting the software, but 1) they are numerous and 2) they often do not specifically target a home user, and if they do 3) there is no single goal / consortium which would coordinate all efforts of (desktop-oriented) user space software. As a result there is more heterogeneity (as opposed to Windows or OS X), which also results in more possibilites, but also more need to, tinker with the OS.

[Sauron]

16 hours ago, Raginryuu said:

So LTT had several videos "recently" of how great linux has become over the years as well as how great it is compared to Windows or macOS or whatever. I have also seen many articles online of the benefits of going Linux than the tranditional Windows  OS.

So it brings me to my question. Although Linux isn't mainstream and that popular (yet?).

Who is Linux not for??

What does this even mean? It's for everyone who wants to use it. If you're asking about downsides... it's almost exclusively a matter of compatibility with software you need. If you need the Adobe suite for your work then you'll have a really hard time using Linux.

1 hour ago, Wild Penquin said:

Linux is not for people who do not have a reason to switch.

Running foss software is a valid reason to switch in and of itself.

1 hour ago, Wild Penquin said:

Linux is not for computer illiterate or those who can not or do not want to learn more advanced usage.

Not true, a lot of computer illiterate people can get along with Linux just as they might with Windows - unless again they run into compatibility issues. Remember that "computer illiterate" people would be equally unable to install Windows themselves if they had to, they need someone to jumpstart their machine.

[Vitamanic]

Linux isn’t for people in the graphic design space, I can personally attest to that. 
 

No Adobe support and no support for Adobe alternatives like Affinity.

[straight_stewie]

I'll say this, even though I'm sure that many people will hate me for it:

The GPL, for all of it's claimed openness, is actually one of the most restrictive open source licenses when it comes to redistribution. Richard Stallman is one of the worst things to ever happen to the open source community. The fact that he is simultaneously the father of the open source community gives me great pain.

 

If you could sell Linux, or take your Linux based OS closed source, there is no doubt whatsoever that everyone would be using a Linux distribution on every single device today.

[sp331yi]

GNU/Linux is NOT for Windows Power Users or a person that thinks they know about all there is to know in the dominant OS's sub-genres.  It will frustrate them and they will blame anything but themselves for 1) Lack of willingness to learn a different way of doing things, and 2)  Lack of Open-mindedness.  Linux is the top OS in the world for servers for a reason. 

 

Ubuntu -- is it the microsoft of linux?  (and all of its sisters, too)  Maybe so.

[Wild Penquin]

On 7/26/2020 at 8:20 PM, Sauron said:

 

On 7/26/2020 at 7:16 PM, Wild Penquin said:

Linux is not for people who do not have a reason to switch.

Running foss software is a valid reason to switch in and of itself.

I never said it isn't.

 

On 7/26/2020 at 8:20 PM, Sauron said:

 

On 7/26/2020 at 7:16 PM, Wild Penquin said:

Linux is not for computer illiterate or those who can not or do not want to learn more advanced usage.

Not true, a lot of computer illiterate people can get along with Linux just as they might with Windows - unless again they run into compatibility issues. Remember that "computer illiterate" people would be equally unable to install Windows themselves if they had to, they need someone to jumpstart their machine.

Yeah, my sentence didn't come out quite well. It's not like there is a dichotomy here (i.e. all Windows users are computer illiterate and Linux users are not...). One needs some skills to install and maintain a Windows desktop, too. You are right of course, however the basic maintenance of a Windows desktop machine is easier and at least more familiar (for someone considering migration) than on Linux. With Linux, user needs to be prepared to learn new stuff, and prepare for breakage when Windows (or OS X/MacOS) decides to overwrite the Linux bootmanager/loader etc...

 

In many ways,  Linux Desktop maintenance can be easier or at least less laborsome and time-consuming than a Windows desktops, after you are familiar with the basics. That's why I choose to install some Linux desktop to those relatives / friends / acquaintances, who just can't maintain any kind of computer and ask some help to get something to read their email and use online banking account with. (EDIT: so, in a way, it suites very well these people I happen to know, who are very computer illiterate).

Edited July 28, 2020 by Wild Penquin
minor clarifications/TYPOs

[AndreiArgeanu]

Linux is not for people who want something that just works, or those that want easy to use user interfaces. Linux is more or less for people that like tinkering with their OS and doing all sorts of things since Linux distro's offer that kind of flexibility. And Linux is not for those that don't have a little computer knowledge since doing things on Linux can sometimes can be more difficult or have more steps compared to Windows, for example installing and uninstalling a program, especially ones that cannot be found in included stores.

[Alexeygridnev1993]

If you're totally dependent on Adobe suite, you're out of luck, as Adobe will never port their software on Linux. Even if you can achieve the same results with GIMP or Davinci Resolve as with Photoshop or Premiere, any employer will expect the knowledge of Adobe software, as it is just an industry standard. That's the sad reality. Also, you're out of luck if you need your Word or PowerPoint files to look exactly the same on Windows computers as they are on yours, Libreoffice provides pretty good compatibility with MS Office, but it's not 100%, and only you can figure out if the compatibility is good enough for you (you can try Libreoffice on your Windows or Mac just to test it, before you make a switch). Of course, development for iOS is out of question on Linux or Windows, as well as professional sound production.

[Alexeygridnev1993]

On 7/26/2020 at 8:05 PM, straight_stewie said:

I'll say this, even though I'm sure that many people will hate me for it:

The GPL, for all of it's claimed openness, is actually one of the most restrictive open source licenses when it comes to redistribution. Richard Stallman is one of the worst things to ever happen to the open source community. The fact that he is simultaneously the father of the open source community gives me great pain.

 

If you could sell Linux, or take your Linux based OS closed source, there is no doubt whatsoever that everyone would be using a Linux distribution on every single device today.

If it was not for GPL, someone like Apple or Google or Microsoft would have simply taken (stolen) Linux source code and turned it into a proprietary OS, which would have killed Linux. That is exactly what happened to FreeBSD; Apple turned it into Mac OS X, closed the source code and earns billions on it, while FreeBSD is dead on desktop and very close to being dead even in server space, in routers, etc. Thanks to GPL, companies who are interested in Linux actually have to contribute to it and share their contribution with everyone else - and they are very willing to do so.

Also, you can perfectly sell Linux, RHEL brings millions to IBM; Ubuntu is also doing pretty well with its cloud and server solutions. It does not make sense to sell just the binaries when source is under GPL, that's true, but you can perfectly sell services associated with the open source product (customer support, cloud subscription, etc.). In addition, no one stops you from bundling GPL software with proprietary one and selling it this way (and then you get Android, which is on 80%+ mobile devices).

I don't like Stallman as a person, for dogmatism, for "GNU/Linux" stupidity, for more than controversial statements on topics unrelated to tech (let's call it like that), but GPL was a good invention, IMHO.

[straight_stewie]

6 hours ago, Alexeygridnev1993 said:

If it was not for GPL, someone like Apple or Google or Microsoft would have simply taken (stolen) Linux source code and turned it into a proprietary OS, which would have killed Linux. That is exactly what happened to FreeBSD; Apple turned it into Mac OS X, closed the source code and earns billions on it, while FreeBSD is dead on desktop and very close to being dead even in server space

That's not even close to true. FreeBSD was never popular, and the team behind FreeBSD claims that Apple regularly upstreams improvements, as well as the other industry partner, NetGate. In fact, PfSense and MacOS X are the only reasons FreeBSD is even still a thing at all.
 

As for the argument about the GPL creating a more open space, the counter argument is that it actually doesn't. Look at the members of the board, and commercial partners, of the Linux foundation (the de-facto copyright holder to the GNU/Linux project(s)). Using a restricted distribution license only invites malicious actors with money to try to gain control over the decision making process, rather than allowing them to just use it themselves. I wonder why Microsoft, Facebook, and Google all want to be financial, code, and decision contributors to the project. I'm sure it's nothing nefarious, these companies aren't known for that at all.

[atxcyclist]

I'd say that it's not for me, because while I like having control over my OS, I don't like having to get into a terminal to do anything that isn't skin-deep. I've tried a few Linux distros like Ubuntu over the years, but mainly for formatting drives since Windows won't typically let you connect a drive with Windows on it and format.

 

Currently I have one computer with Linux on it, an old netbook, that I was using for a little while just to get more familiar with Linux. After needing to spend 2 hours researching, and another hour in the terminal to get the temp sensor control for the fan working, that was about all the fun I needed. As someone that learned MS-BASIC and Ti-BASIC in elementary and middle school, respectively, took C+ in high school, and dabbled in HTML and a few others over the years, Linux is more hands-on than I want for a day-to-day OS. Plug and play compatibility and GUI software/hardware management are just some things I don't want to give up.