Hello, 1990's called and they want their "Linux vs Windows" debate back.
Windows lost this long ago, and Linux never won. This is an old script being presented over and over again by Linux advocacy, themselves trapped in irrelevant arguments. Since this is an old script and I have seen so many times a topic like this on a forum ending up with "let's agree it's all an indvidual perception" before being closed by the moderator, I'll declare my winner based on my experience.
Mac hardware has a certain price tag. Windows hardware, at its entry point, has much more approachable price. That drove me to buy a Windows machine. Then I encountered Linux. I did not ditch Windows comletely while using Linux. Then, Windows 10 came out and that's when I decided to ditch Windows. Microsoft trying to be Apple. But also Google trying to be Apple. It became obvious who's the standard bearer. So now, as far as personal computing needs, I am fully into Apple's camp. I also have a Linux server at home that is used both for data science studies and to not forget what I learned about Linux. I may in the future install Windows on my Mac in a VM to finish a course on Excel, my current job might need an in-house Excel operator which may mean a raise but other than a job opening/business prospect/work requirement, I will not consider going back to Windows for personal usage. Why not Linux for personal usage?
Failed on its nose for so many times, if I didn't know Linux as much as I did during those failures I would have never recovered that Linux box to a working state. You may argue hardware manufacturers make it easy only for Microsoft but not for anyone else, and you are probably right. For personal computing, Linux is not for commodity hardware. Major system updates can bring your own personal system to its knees.
Linux developers averse to testing before release. Yet, they tout their creations as the best solution just because it's open source. If your free software brings down my machine, I don't want to use it. Open source or not, free or not. I need a fully working machine that is also not a test bed for the aspring developer needing to establish portfolio.
Prevalence of low-quality, misleading and even deceitful answers to your questions posted in online Linux and open source communities. Plenty of arogance and ineptitude on display that I have seen in those communities. If/when you complain about it or have an issue with using Linux , there's no one to hold accountable. "Oh what do you want, it's free software, we are all volunteers" answer is used to silence you despite having legitimate issues. Contrast that with Apple, there's a store and an employee you CAN go to and get your issue solved or question answered and the answer is merited, qualified and authoritative. The worst answer I encountered in the online Linux communities is "just change the distribution, try then distribution Y instead of X", yet it is so oftenely thrown around. This is not how personal computing is done, wiping your HDD at every issue for which you receive unqualified advice. Who is Linux for, then?
Aspiring/current sysadmins, PC hobbyists, aspiring/established developers. It most definitely isn't for everyone. It had plenty, plenty of time to become one. It's unlikely it ever will.
At least, your imagination about Linux is obsolete for at least 10 (closer to 15) years. Or, you're intentionally seeking for such places. Currently, development is concentrated at corporations which support tools used in their business, the same for support. And vice versa, commercial support for Apple and Microsoft OSes degrades rapidly. Windows 10 is mainly tested by final users than by specialized QA, so 11 is.
The reasons to keep Windows (at least) prevalence at desktop is legacy both in hardware and software (especially corporate sector). There is no principal reason out of it.
Your reply just proved several of my points. It also proved you disregarded the title of the topic and just went on full Linux advocate.
And in all your Linux advocacy religious fervor you stumbled upon another important reason why Linux will never be widely adopted as an OS for personal computing: it is a server OS, not a client OS- as you aptly described the places where Linux is adopted:
" Currently, development is concentrated at corporations which support tools used in their business, the same for support. "
Windows originated as a client OS, MacOS got impaled on client hardware successfully only because Apple makes both the hardware and the OS, Linux doesn't have the hardware support nor customer support hence its adoption limited to the server room and engineering departments. As you aptly put it:
" The reasons to keep Windows (at least) prevalence at desktop is legacy both in hardware and software (especially corporate sector). "
Windows vs Linux debate is an outdated one and nonsensical: first, neither is widely adopted for personal computing by consumers' choice (you already gave a reason why Windows was adopted, people were forced to compromise- your explanation because it was provided at work). Second, you are comparing a client OS to a server OS.
I just love when Linux advocates mention the Microsoft tax and Apple's hardware's prices- and then point out how Linux is free: try purchasing a Linux-first computer or at least get some hardware which is certified to be able to run Linux (Red Hat maintains a list of certified PC models that will successfully run RHEL) and then see how that price very closely follows the price of Apple's hardware.
Your reply just proved several of my points. It also proved you disregarded the title of the topic and just went on full Linux advocate.
No, it's your message which proved you disregard all the topic and discussion and don't see anything except the arguments you'd want to see for depreciation of what had been changed several (many) years ago.
And in all your Linux advocacy religious fervor
The very fact you've found a kind of "religious fervor", where a sober sight couldn't have found a faintest trail of it, exposes your attitude well enough.
(I'm not a Linux advocate. In real, I prefer BSD:) but the sad fact that Linux, with its community model and license, had beaten closest competitors, has to be admitted.)
never be widely adopted as an OS for personal computing: it is a server OS, not a client OS- as you aptly described the places where Linux is adopted:
I constantly run Linux desktop at my workplace for last ~14 years. I also used FreeBSD for 15 years in the same role. I use Windows at work laptop, due to employer policy. I have enough data to compare.
Linux doesn't have the hardware support nor customer support hence its adoption limited to the server room and engineering departments
This is fairly a vicious circle. Absence of hardware support causes trend to concentrate on server segment where Linux advantages get crucial, and then a false apprehension as a server OS causes less request as a client one. But, Android has shown that this circle can be broken just by a single huge stroke.
Windows vs Linux debate is an outdated one and nonsensical
If so, why you push your feed into this debate with a real religious fervor (which you, for an obscure reason, ascribe to me)?
try purchasing a Linux-first computer
I don't know what is "Linux-first" in your understanding here. I'm writing this at Acer laptop costed ~1/2 of Apple's device with similar characteristics.
You are the one defending Linux like it is some kind of deity. I run my workstation on RHEL 9 and still refuse to profess Linux with the fervor that you display.
And yes, this topic IS about Windows vs Linux in personal computing, read the title. I doubt you'll bother.
You are the one defending Linux like it is some kind of deity.
No, you are the one subverting like it is some kind of deity.
I'm just rational. I hate Linux for a bunch of ugly properties. But, after counting all pros and cons, it looks like the optimal solution, again, where and when the discussed legacy does not affect its use.
still refuse to profess Linux with the fervor that you display.
You still deny the fact the only fervor in this thread is yours.
about Windows vs Linux in personal computing, read the title. I doubt you'll bother.
Definitely it is, read the title. I've already said: I use it on personal desktop for 14 years. I can't find how I could be clearer here.
Now I don't doubt you bother on anything, but applying your fervor. For what?
Well, I'm tired of this discussion despite its help in training English:) Let you continue by yourself, if you need.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Hello, 1990's called and they want their "Linux vs Windows" debate back.
Windows lost this long ago, and Linux never won. This is an old script being presented over and over again by Linux advocacy, themselves trapped in irrelevant arguments. Since this is an old script and I have seen so many times a topic like this on a forum ending up with "let's agree it's all an indvidual perception" before being closed by the moderator, I'll declare my winner based on my experience.
Mac hardware has a certain price tag. Windows hardware, at its entry point, has much more approachable price. That drove me to buy a Windows machine. Then I encountered Linux. I did not ditch Windows comletely while using Linux. Then, Windows 10 came out and that's when I decided to ditch Windows. Microsoft trying to be Apple. But also Google trying to be Apple. It became obvious who's the standard bearer. So now, as far as personal computing needs, I am fully into Apple's camp. I also have a Linux server at home that is used both for data science studies and to not forget what I learned about Linux. I may in the future install Windows on my Mac in a VM to finish a course on Excel, my current job might need an in-house Excel operator which may mean a raise but other than a job opening/business prospect/work requirement, I will not consider going back to Windows for personal usage.
Why not Linux for personal usage?
Failed on its nose for so many times, if I didn't know Linux as much as I did during those failures I would have never recovered that Linux box to a working state. You may argue hardware manufacturers make it easy only for Microsoft but not for anyone else, and you are probably right. For personal computing, Linux is not for commodity hardware. Major system updates can bring your own personal system to its knees.
Linux developers averse to testing before release. Yet, they tout their creations as the best solution just because it's open source. If your free software brings down my machine, I don't want to use it. Open source or not, free or not. I need a fully working machine that is also not a test bed for the aspring developer needing to establish portfolio.
Prevalence of low-quality, misleading and even deceitful answers to your questions posted in online Linux and open source communities. Plenty of arogance and ineptitude on display that I have seen in those communities. If/when you complain about it or have an issue with using Linux , there's no one to hold accountable. "Oh what do you want, it's free software, we are all volunteers" answer is used to silence you despite having legitimate issues. Contrast that with Apple, there's a store and an employee you CAN go to and get your issue solved or question answered and the answer is merited, qualified and authoritative. The worst answer I encountered in the online Linux communities is "just change the distribution, try then distribution Y instead of X", yet it is so oftenely thrown around. This is not how personal computing is done, wiping your HDD at every issue for which you receive unqualified advice.
Who is Linux for, then?
Aspiring/current sysadmins, PC hobbyists, aspiring/established developers. It most definitely isn't for everyone. It had plenty, plenty of time to become one. It's unlikely it ever will.
At least, your imagination about Linux is obsolete for at least 10 (closer to 15) years. Or, you're intentionally seeking for such places. Currently, development is concentrated at corporations which support tools used in their business, the same for support. And vice versa, commercial support for Apple and Microsoft OSes degrades rapidly. Windows 10 is mainly tested by final users than by specialized QA, so 11 is.
The reasons to keep Windows (at least) prevalence at desktop is legacy both in hardware and software (especially corporate sector). There is no principal reason out of it.
Your reply just proved several of my points. It also proved you disregarded the title of the topic and just went on full Linux advocate.
And in all your Linux advocacy religious fervor you stumbled upon another important reason why Linux will never be widely adopted as an OS for personal computing: it is a server OS, not a client OS- as you aptly described the places where Linux is adopted:
" Currently, development is concentrated at corporations which support tools used in their business, the same for support. "
Windows originated as a client OS, MacOS got impaled on client hardware successfully only because Apple makes both the hardware and the OS, Linux doesn't have the hardware support nor customer support hence its adoption limited to the server room and engineering departments. As you aptly put it:
" The reasons to keep Windows (at least) prevalence at desktop is legacy both in hardware and software (especially corporate sector). "
Windows vs Linux debate is an outdated one and nonsensical: first, neither is widely adopted for personal computing by consumers' choice (you already gave a reason why Windows was adopted, people were forced to compromise- your explanation because it was provided at work). Second, you are comparing a client OS to a server OS.
I just love when Linux advocates mention the Microsoft tax and Apple's hardware's prices- and then point out how Linux is free: try purchasing a Linux-first computer or at least get some hardware which is certified to be able to run Linux (Red Hat maintains a list of certified PC models that will successfully run RHEL) and then see how that price very closely follows the price of Apple's hardware.
No, it's your message which proved you disregard all the topic and discussion and don't see anything except the arguments you'd want to see for depreciation of what had been changed several (many) years ago.
The very fact you've found a kind of "religious fervor", where a sober sight couldn't have found a faintest trail of it, exposes your attitude well enough.
(I'm not a Linux advocate. In real, I prefer BSD:) but the sad fact that Linux, with its community model and license, had beaten closest competitors, has to be admitted.)
I constantly run Linux desktop at my workplace for last ~14 years. I also used FreeBSD for 15 years in the same role. I use Windows at work laptop, due to employer policy. I have enough data to compare.
This is fairly a vicious circle. Absence of hardware support causes trend to concentrate on server segment where Linux advantages get crucial, and then a false apprehension as a server OS causes less request as a client one. But, Android has shown that this circle can be broken just by a single huge stroke.
If so, why you push your feed into this debate with a real religious fervor (which you, for an obscure reason, ascribe to me)?
I don't know what is "Linux-first" in your understanding here. I'm writing this at Acer laptop costed ~1/2 of Apple's device with similar characteristics.
You are the one defending Linux like it is some kind of deity. I run my workstation on RHEL 9 and still refuse to profess Linux with the fervor that you display.
And yes, this topic IS about Windows vs Linux in personal computing, read the title. I doubt you'll bother.
No, you are the one subverting like it is some kind of deity.
I'm just rational. I hate Linux for a bunch of ugly properties. But, after counting all pros and cons, it looks like the optimal solution, again, where and when the discussed legacy does not affect its use.
You still deny the fact the only fervor in this thread is yours.
Definitely it is, read the title. I've already said: I use it on personal desktop for 14 years. I can't find how I could be clearer here.
Now I don't doubt you bother on anything, but applying your fervor. For what?
Well, I'm tired of this discussion despite its help in training English:) Let you continue by yourself, if you need.