The only thing I see holding people back is software availability. If it could run adobe and games natively I don’t see why anyone would want to pay for windows.
Software is definitely at the top of the list in terms of reasons. But the UX/UI definitely leaves something to be desired. I sigh heavily every time an application asks me to edit a text-based config file instead of giving me a GUI. It’s an unnecessary, error-prone process and most importantly I have better things to do than read yet another page of documentation. That doesn’t mean I want the config file to go away, it’s still very useful for a variety of reasons. But I shouldn’t have to mess around with it just to remap keys or other common tasks. Editing a config file should be a last resort for an end user.
You see similar problems when relying on the terminal. I don’t like this idea of the end user being allowed to mess around without a safety net or some sort of guidance.
I think it’s more about trying to change particular industries. If all of Adobes software was available for Linux in a supported and stable versions, you could see changes in the OS used in lots of design and creativity industries, which again would change what OS people use at home.
Also I think the force of being open source and spread over so many distros, is also a weakness in terms of getting the mainstream user to use it. My dad will call me or ask his friend about how you do this and that in Windows, but if our OS per default looks different from what others are using, he will not be able to get the same kind of help from his near community, and will have to rely on a more technical kind of support.
And things have to work out of the box. If I hear “You CAN get it to work” - I won’t use it. I need things to just work, I don’t have time to (nor interrest in) spending a night mingeling with config files to have simple things do the things they’re supposed to.
The only thing I see holding people back is software availability. If it could run adobe and games natively I don’t see why anyone would want to pay for windows.
Software is definitely at the top of the list in terms of reasons. But the UX/UI definitely leaves something to be desired. I sigh heavily every time an application asks me to edit a text-based config file instead of giving me a GUI. It’s an unnecessary, error-prone process and most importantly I have better things to do than read yet another page of documentation. That doesn’t mean I want the config file to go away, it’s still very useful for a variety of reasons. But I shouldn’t have to mess around with it just to remap keys or other common tasks. Editing a config file should be a last resort for an end user.
You see similar problems when relying on the terminal. I don’t like this idea of the end user being allowed to mess around without a safety net or some sort of guidance.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I think it’s more about trying to change particular industries. If all of Adobes software was available for Linux in a supported and stable versions, you could see changes in the OS used in lots of design and creativity industries, which again would change what OS people use at home.
Also I think the force of being open source and spread over so many distros, is also a weakness in terms of getting the mainstream user to use it. My dad will call me or ask his friend about how you do this and that in Windows, but if our OS per default looks different from what others are using, he will not be able to get the same kind of help from his near community, and will have to rely on a more technical kind of support.
And things have to work out of the box. If I hear “You CAN get it to work” - I won’t use it. I need things to just work, I don’t have time to (nor interrest in) spending a night mingeling with config files to have simple things do the things they’re supposed to.
Tbf I am a graphic designer haha.