Rick Moen <rick@???> wrote:

>> In part, Linux adoption is held back by its perceived difficulty....
>
> Just a brief comment about this in passing, as this is an antique debate point ages ago stomped into the ground on comp.os.*.advocacy and other places: An operating system one must install (not preloaded) will always be perceived as 'difficult' compared to one already furnished as a point'n'drool preload.

You know that, I know that, ...
And for years I've been installing OSs of various types : Apple DOS, MS/PC Dos, Windows from when it wasn't much more than a few windows on top of DOS, Mac OS, Mac OS X, Xenix, OpenServer, OS/2, and various flavours of Linux. I've even done a bit of embedded system work - mine was the human inteface part, but I also worked on the disk controller module (including determining by experiments what interleave factor worked best on the floppies) and test modules (it was an automated cable testing setup).
So yes, *I* know that Linux generally isn't any harder than others (drivers for OpenServer were a particular headache IIRC, not to mention RAID controllers for Windows) - but it still has this (invalid) perception based on reading about having to download drivers etc. I have to think hard for occasions when I've had to download drivers for Linux - the only ones I can think of were the closed ones for an nVidia card, and the binary firmware blobs for my TV tuner cards.
The last installs I had to do were Windows 10 at work, and TBH they were much more of a PITA given how MS seem to have gone out of their way to make things difficult for someone who doesn't want to be borged by their attempt to mimic Google's and FaecesBook's ability to grab and monetise user information. I'd keep a special place in hell for the people responsible for that abomination.

> ... just pointing out that the entire discussion is saturated with balderdash.

Agreed.

>> If there were lots more Linux users, and lots less Windows users, then
>> that situation would change.
>
> My Kansas-born mother would have said, 'If the hoptoad had wings, it wouldn't bump its bottom on the prairie.'

I know a few more sayings along those lines - some of them not suitable for polite conversation ;-)

> In other words, if you start with an implausible premise, you can reach just about any conclusion you want. In this case, the credibility challeged premise is 'lots less Windows users', as that is obviously not likely for the foreseeable future. The PeeCee OEM preload monopoly is a thing, and even the rise of smartphones and tablets hasn't made a dent in it.

The point being made is WHY things are as they are - which is that there's no business driver for hardware manufacturers to support Linux. I agree that we are where we are and that's not going to change quickly - if it did then that part of the catch-22 situation would be broken, but I won't be holding my breath for it !


But as you point out, any analysis of why doesn't really alter the fact that for most people computing == Windows (or for some, Mac OS X which is IMO less bad) and internet == Google + FaecesBook. Anything else is strange, different, and therefore "difficult". That's going to take some changing.