Obviously, a bit of clickbait. Sorry.

I just got to work and plugged my surface pro into my external monitor. It didn’t switch inputs immediately, and I thought “Linux would have done that”. But would it?

I find myself far more patient using Linux and De-googled Android than I do with windows or anything else. After all, Linux is mine. I care for it. Grow it like a garden.

And that’s a good thing; I get less frustrated with my tech, and I have something that is important to me outside its technical utility. Unlike windows, which I’m perpetually pissed at. (Very often with good reason)

But that aside, do we give Linux too much benefit of the doubt relative to the “things that just work”. Often they do “just work”, and well, with a broad feature set by default.

Most of us are willing to forgo that for the privacy and shear customizability of Linux, but do we assume too much of the tech we use and the tech we don’t?

Thoughts?

  • thejevans
    12·
    12 days ago

    I think about this a lot, and my take is that Linux is waaayyy better if you have perfect or close-to-perfect knowledge of how the operating system works and what software is available. Similarly, I think an argument can be made for Linux being better if all you need is a web browser and you’re not using really unusual hardware.

    Where things fall apart is for people who have very specific needs that are complex, even if they only need it 1% of the time, and they don’t have the technical knowledge to solve it with the power-user tools available. Microsoft has spent decades paying developers to handle these edge cases and ensuring GUI settings discoverability.

    At the same time, schools and workplaces have taught people the design language of Windows, and the network effect of having so much of the world’s end-user PCs running on Windows means that there are vast resources available targeted at people without technical knowledge. At this point, for better or worse, Microsoft’s design language is the global default for non-technical people.

    If a person never has to touch a setting because all they need is a browser, they don’t hit any friction and they are happy. If they need to do even one thing that requires them to dig into settings or touch the terminal, the difference from Microsoft’s design language is enough for that one frustrating experience to give them a bad taste in their mouth about Linux as a whole.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      11·
      12 days ago

      At the same time, schools and workplaces have taught people the design language of Windows, and the network effect of having so much of the world’s end-user PCs running on Windows means that there are vast resources available targeted at people without technical knowledge. At this point, for better or worse, Microsoft’s design language is the global default for non-technical people.

      People forget that this was purposeful, too.

      Why did Microsoft not do really do anything about pirated Windows in the 1990s?

      Because they were banking on the network effect of everyone being used to their operating system. It’s part of why they started essentially giving it away in the modern era to end-consumers.

      It worked.