Do Linux users suffer from lack of software?

[Mikael H]

I'm confident that there is an app or script on Linux that can accomplish the same goals that apps on other platforms can do. The difference isn't that there is or isn't an app, rather, it's that there is a different way to do the same thing. It just takes a person to learn a new way, a new method or a new program to achieve the same end.

I think you're saying just about the same thing using different terms: There's nothing technical preventing you from accomplishing a task in Linux that you can perform in Windows. It is a fact, though, that some things cannot be done easily in Linux by someone used to doing the same things in Windows or on the Mac.

Part of the solution to this problem actually is "more apps", or rather "more of the apps people in general recognize and know how to use". Another part of a viable solution probably is something few in the FOSS world think is a good thing: More centralization and less choice.
The people who learn how to accomplish a task rather than how to attack a problem domain won't like that "apt in RedHat" is called dnf and behaves slightly differently, while no amount of experience with either of them will let you understand how yast works in Suse.

 

[Erehy Dobon]

.

 

[MacBH928]

Is this what you've heard or what you've experienced? I'm a programmer that has used Linux for work for years and while terminal use is frequent it's by no means all I use.

Not arguing against your main point, but anecdotally I was at a conference recently, where I saw a handful of Windows machines but mainly a 50/50 split between various MacBooks and mostly Thinkpads running some Linux variant or other. While almost everybody did have a terminal window or more on their screen, even the most hardcore of the Linux users there were running at the very least a window manager but more commonly a desktop environment.
Just saying that quality of life improvements are important even to most nerds...

Couldn't agree more. I used to be a sysadmin, but I didn't live entirely in a terminal. I used a normal desktop environment for a long time.

These days I run a window manager and I do have and use several terminal shell applications daily, but I still have a mix of GUI apps running at the same time.
[automerge]1574938713[/automerge]

That was exaggeration to make a point, and the point is KDE and the desktop environments were developed to their current status to make it "friendly" and "for new users". Programmers and system admins can download and upgrade apps with command strings they memorize, while tools like Elementary AppCenter is obviously made for the "Windows Switcher".

I'll disagree there. I'm confident that there is an app or script on Linux that can accomplish the same goals that apps on other platforms can do. The difference isn't that there is or isn't an app, rather, it's that there is a different way to do the same thing. It just takes a person to learn a new way, a new method or a new program to achieve the same end.

There is a learning curve though, you don't expect the user to learn C++ to be able to sync his iPhone to iTunes like device. Usually the Linux option is the more difficult and the worse way to do things because of lack of support which keeps people away from the OS. I would like to see a comparison between Linux Apps and Windows/Mac OS, ignoring price and FOSS ideology, simply put which software is easier and more capable to use. Things like Photoshop vs GIMP, Blender vs Maya, Microsoft Excel vs LibreCalc... thats not to mention a lot of software vendors that do not offer a Linux version , as mentioned by a poster here, like GoToMYPC.

Though there is software equal or might be better on Linux like Firefox and VLC. If we can get the rest of the software to that level, I do not see why Linux can not replace MacOS/Windows entirely. Infact I think that will be the end of Windows. Who wants to pay for spyware, when you can have security for free?

 

[SandboxGeneral]

That was exaggeration to make a point, and the point is KDE and the desktop environments were developed to their current status to make it "friendly" and "for new users". Programmers and system admins can download and upgrade apps with command strings they memorize, while tools like Elementary AppCenter is obviously made for the "Windows Switcher".

And there is certainly nothing wrong with that at all either. I'm all for making things easier to use, especially for newbies.

There is a learning curve though, you don't expect the user to learn C++ to be able to sync his iPhone to iTunes like device.

What I expect people to do is what they desire to do. Take me for example. I wanted to learn how to use Linux with terminal shells and I wanted to learn how to make my desktop's look and feel like some crazy Hollywood science-fiction movie. I had that desire but no real knowledge about it. So I did what it took to make it happen and I taught myself. I could have stayed with the easy to use, traditional desktop environment of Ubuntu for using Linux and there would have been nothing wrong with that.

I have no expectation that anyone who doesn't have a desire and willingness to learn something new should go out and force themselves to learn a new platform. If they're happy with Ubuntu, macOS or Windows, then more power to them. But if they want to learn how to use terminal applications, window managers and the more difficult stuff, then that's great too. I'll support people in whichever direction they choose to go.

There's really no wrong answer here. It's all subjective to the individual user's preferences.

Usually the Linux option is the more difficult and the worse way to do things because of lack of support which keeps people away from the OS. I would like to see a comparison between Linux Apps and Windows/Mac OS, ignoring price and FOSS ideology, simply put which software is easier and more capable to use. Things like Photoshop vs GIMP, Blender vs Maya, Microsoft Excel vs LibreCalc... thats not to mention a lot of software vendors that do not offer a Linux version , as mentioned by a poster here, like GoToMYPC.

With regard to doing something on Linux that is easy on macOS or Windows, I still subscribe to the old adage of "where there is a will, there is a way." It may not always be easy, but there is almost certainly a way.

I don't think there is much argument to be had when we say that doing some things on Linux is more difficult than on macOS or Windows. In many cases that is certainly true. But again, I point back to my earlier statement that if someone has the will to learn something new, then they'll do what it takes to make it happen. Otherwise, they'll likely be content to remain where they're at and carry on with life.

Though there is software equal or might be better on Linux like Firefox and VLC. If we can get the rest of the software to that level, I do not see why Linux can not replace MacOS/Windows entirely. Infact I think that will be the end of Windows. Who wants to pay for spyware, when you can have security for free?

I've said this before and I'll keep saying it again and again. Linux won't replace Windows or macOS because it's a community of disparate people who keep it (and the software that runs on it) going. Microsoft and Apple are monolithic corporations who tightly control their OS's and have huge bankrolls to support them. That allows them to create and refine their OS's for the (subjectively) best possible user experience they can make. They are able to keep the OS's and to a limited degree the third-party apps that run on them relatively consistent and easy to use. The Linux community doesn't operate this way. To a certain degree, the community of Linux developers is akin to trying to herd cats - they go and do what they want to do and abide by limited loose-leaf standards.

Who is going to corral the Linux community into a monolithic corporation/organization, stomping out all the indie developers and formalizing the OS to put it on a level that can compete with Microsoft and Apple?

Let's say that actually has a chance at happening. At that point to achieve the competitiveness to Microsoft and Apple, Linux would need to start turning proprietary in order to streamline the end-user experience and bring compatibility to the mainline apps that the normies use, like Abobe products for example. Then the philosophy of FOSS would be extinct.

At that point, if Linux became like Windows and macOS, there is little doubt in my mind that some FOSS-minded people would go out and develop a whole new kernel and FOSS ecosystem to compete with Windows, macOS and Proprietary Linux (the Big Three). Then we'd be be starting this philosophical debate all over again talking about how and why this new, 4th FOSS OS can become a major player to supplant the Big Three.

I argue that the philosophy of FOSS is inseparable from what the community of Linux users and developers stand for. If you remove FOSS from the equation, then Linux ceases to exist and becomes just another proprietary system like Windows and macOS.

Another thing to consider why Linux will probably never compete with Windows and macOS is because of the normies - the normal people. These are the vast majority of people who have limited or no technical ability for computers and simply use them to do their jobs, browse Facebook and do email. The normies all use Windows and increasingly macOS. Actually, the trend seems to be drifting towards iOS and Android for normies anymore, but that's a debate for a different thread.

But the point is, the normies only know Windows and macOS because that's all they've been exposed to their whole lives. They know what it is, they know how to use it and they're comfortable with it. For the normie to change and uproot all of that comfort to learn Linux to do the same thing they've been doing all along on Windows/macOS is craziness to them. Why would the normie want to make their life and their work so much harder for no apparent reason?

Microsoft won the war for the normies decades ago. That's why they own the largest market share of desktops on the planet. To ask the normies to give up all that they know to switch to something more difficult is too much to ask of them.

Finally, it's my opinion that Linux and BSD, are for and will always remain an OS of choice for the determined curious few who like to learn different things, more difficult things, and avoid the proprietary clutches where possible of the monolithic corporations. These people aren't the normies, they're the curious, determined few.

 

[2984839]

I don't use Linux except in very rare circumstances but the biggest problem I see with Linux today is the insistence on trying to supplant Windows or macOS on the desktop for the average user. That idea has spawned messes like systemd, pulseaudio, and NetworkManager.

Look, I am in charge of training for my department at a large company and have to show people how to use computers every day for the most basic tasks. There is absolutely no way Linux will ever supplant Windows or Mac for non-technical people (which is most of them) without a massive investment of time and money, probably by a giant like Google that also has the marketing and hardware manufacturing ability. You're better off teaching people how to use Linux than trying to bend Linux to be like Windows. Yes that means fewer people will use it and that's fine. The evangelistic Linux mentality really creeps me out. That just doesn't exist in the BSD community and there are very good reasons for that.

 

[Glockworkorange]

no I mean connecting them to iTunes, doing backups, sending files back and forth, syncing... I know iTunes does not exist for Linux

iTunes no longer exists for Mac either

 

[sracer]

I know as a mac user sometimes I am let down to know some software is not available for MacOS, I was wondering if Linux users are in the same boat. I know the basics are covered like office suite and browser, but is there anything else you found not available on Linux?

I heard you can run Windows software via wine but not sure if this is a real solution or just half-baked one.

I'm a fan of Linux and it is part of my "escape plan" for the final stage of leaving Appleland (when my desktop and laptops need to be replaced). I completely wiped out Chrome OS on my Acer Chromebook 14 and installed Gallium OS (Linux distro specifically designed for chromebook hardware)... not because of any deficiencies with Chrome OS, but I subsequently bought a Pixelbook and I wanted a dedicated Linux system.

When I need to replace my wife's 13" MBA, it'll be a notebook with Elementary OS.

As you pointed out, the basics are well covered, and even some of the more advanced needs are covered too. For me, Bible software is sorely lacking on Linux. While there are one or two decent alternatives, they lack the cross-platform support for library resources which is the real issue since that is what money is spent on.

In that respect, I've found WINE to be indispensable. It allows me to run my Bible software just about as well as it natively runs under Windows and MacOS.

I'm also a fan of Chrome OS. In that regard, there are a few Linux distros that help blur the lines between Linux and CrOS. Peppermint Linux is an example and may be the distro I go to for my daily driver non-MacOS notebook.

 

[MisterSavage]

I'm also a fan of Chrome OS. In that regard, there are a few Linux distros that help blur the lines between Linux and CrOS. Peppermint Linux is an example and may be the distro I go to for my daily driver non-MacOS notebook.

I am also. I have some relatives that are absolute novices with computers who just wanted to surf the web. As their tech support guy I felt most comfortable tell them to get a Chromebook. It has worked out great.

 

[Mikael H]

As you pointed out, the basics are well covered, and even some of the more advanced needs are covered too. For me, Bible software is sorely lacking on Linux. While there are one or two decent alternatives, they lack the cross-platform support for library resources which is the real issue since that is what money is spent on.

In that respect, I've found WINE to be indispensable. It allows me to run my Bible software just about as well as it natively runs under Windows and MacOS.

Oh, I would watch out for that FOSS thing, if I were you: Don't you know that only communists, atheists, and communist atheists run Linux? Well-known fact. ?

 

[jeyf]

for whatever Linux situation you use the selection of driver software is limited.

virtualization dosnt use that much processor bandwidth these days. So long as your not doing any video graphics it really works.

i think that answers the OP's initial concerns w/o taking the thread sideways.

 

[MacBH928]

But the point is, the normies only know Windows and macOS because that's all they've been exposed to their whole lives. They know what it is, they know how to use it and they're comfortable with it. For the normie to change and uproot all of that comfort to learn Linux to do the same thing they've been doing all along on Windows/macOS is craziness to them. Why would the normie want to make their life and their work so much harder for no apparent reason?

I completely agree with everything you say, but it doesn't have to be one or the other. Both can exist. If you want the more difficult to maintain Arch like distros, be my guest. That doesn't mean we can not have a version/distro for the "normies" like say Linux Mint. Something like Linux Mint is already a perfect substitute for Windows OS, what I am arguing for is that 3rd part software that is lacking. I do not see why people can't be running Linux Mint and be using Adobe Suite even if it is closed source and paid for, it is still better than Windows. Linux is no longer in its late 90s form where it was difficult to install and incompatible. Its already good for the normies.

As for why should they switch, its simple. Privacy and price. Open Source OS that is not built to leech of your personal activity online and is free.
[automerge]1575068275[/automerge]

There is absolutely no way Linux will ever supplant Windows or Mac for non-technical people (which is most of them) without a massive investment of time and money, probably by a giant like Google that also has the marketing and hardware manufacturing ability.

Why not? If you can use Windows or MacOS, I don't see why it would be difficult to use something like the Cinnamon DE. Its very familiar. As for software, browsers like FireFox or LibreOffice behave and work in the same way. I think people who would switch to linux will not face more difficulty than those who switch from Windows->Mac or opposite. I am talking about the "friendly" distros.

 

[MacBH928]

I'm a fan of Linux and it is part of my "escape plan" for the final stage of leaving Appleland (when my desktop and laptops need to be replaced). I completely wiped out Chrome OS on my Acer Chromebook 14 and installed Gallium OS (Linux distro specifically designed for chromebook hardware)... not because of any deficiencies with Chrome OS, but I subsequently bought a Pixelbook and I wanted a dedicated Linux system.

thanks for sharing the tip about Gallium OS.

 

[Mikael H]

Look, I am in charge of training for my department at a large company and have to show people how to use computers every day for the most basic tasks.

How did your company deal with Windows 8, for example? That pretty much was putting people in front of a new DE, correct? And the ribbon conversion of Office a bunch’a years ago was pretty much the same, for one of the most used set of applications.
I’d say that moving to a “slightly different” environment in a corporate setting where people have access to some kind of helpdesk and administrators that do the under-the-hood work probably doesn’t have to be that bad. But execution is everything.

 

[SandboxGeneral]

I completely agree with everything you say, but it doesn't have to be one or the other. Both can exist. If you want the more difficult to maintain Arch like distros, be my guest. That doesn't mean we can not have a version/distro for the "normies" like say Linux Mint. Something like Linux Mint is already a perfect substitute for Windows OS, what I am arguing for is that 3rd part software that is lacking. I do not see why people can't be running Linux Mint and be using Adobe Suite even if it is closed source and paid for, it is still better than Windows. Linux is no longer in its late 90s form where it was difficult to install and incompatible. Its already good for the normies.

As for why should they switch, its simple. Privacy and price. Open Source OS that is not built to leech of your personal activity online and is free.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on this and would like to see Linux adoption much higher. I just don't believe it can work.

Let's take Mint for example as you brought it up. Mint is a fine distro and one I've used before and enjoyed.

Who is going to convince people to switch to Mint? More importantly, who is going to dump millions upon millions of dollars into an advertising campaign, make deals with PC makers to sell their computers with Mint pre-installed and do this consistently over a very long time?

Look at Apple's "Think Different" and the "I'm a PC, and I'm a Mac" campaign's. While largely successful for them, they're still a small part of the global desktop market share. If any company has the power to convince the populace to leave Microsoft its Apple. Yet, they haven't achieved this goal so far. And Apple has most of those crucial apps, like Adobe products working on macOS.

The next challenge is the third-party apps as you bring up, which is a good debate to have. Just as I mentioned above, who is going to convince Adobe to re-write or port their products to work on Mint? When the bean counters at Adobe and most of these other companies take a look at the cost/benefit ratio to make their stuff work on Mint they're likely going to say it would be a bad investment with little to no ROI.

It's going to take some ballsy venture capitalist(s) with a ridiculous amount of cash to get the ball rolling to make something like this happen. That is, to get Mint marketed to the normies, the PC makers and other stakeholders, as well as convincing/investing in third-party companies, like Adobe to make widespread adoption of Mint happen. Even then, I have my doubts that it would be as successful as some might hope it to be.

Have a look at Gabe Newell, co-founder of Steam. He's trying to make a big push and a case for gaming on Linux. Steam is making some headway in this area and there are some people out there very excited about this like the YouTuber The Linux Gamer, the website Gaming on Linux and there is another popular Twitter account that I seem to be forgetting which is dedicated to this topic. But even with all of that, I think it's a fantasy to think that gaming on Linux will ever compete with gaming on Windows. Take me for example on this one. Right now I'm on my Linux PC, but to my left on the next table is an Alienware PC with Windows 10 which I use for gaming only. Even I don't game on Linux.

You know, all of this isn't to say that making Mint popular among the normies isn't possible, it certainly is, but it's unlikely. However, there are places normies can get PC's with Linux pre-installed.

Dell still sells machines with Ubuntu pre-installed: https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/overview/cp/linuxsystems

You have System 76 with Pop!_OS: https://www.system76.com/ (Though their website seems to be down right now )

Purism with Pure OS: https://puri.sm/

Zareason where you can get your choice of several OS's to have installed: https://zareason.com/

I'm sure there are a few other places like these out there, too.

But at the end of the day, I just don't see Linux making any serious headway in the normie market. I like to be optimistic about most things, but in this case, I'm more of a realist.

 

[2984839]

How did your company deal with Windows 8, for example? That pretty much was putting people in front of a new DE, correct? And the ribbon conversion of Office a bunch’a years ago was pretty much the same, for one of the most used set of applications.
I’d say that moving to a “slightly different” environment in a corporate setting where people have access to some kind of helpdesk and administrators that do the under-the-hood work probably doesn’t have to be that bad. But execution is everything.

We skipped 8 and waited for 10, but even then, we waited a long time. We had everything running Windows 7 as recently as 2 years ago. It was still difficult as 10 is different enough from 7 to be confusing for many people.

I'd say that of the 90 or so people in our department 50 of them don't know what "Chrome" is. You can't say "open Chrome". You have to say "click that colorful swirly icon down there, no not that one, yes that one, no just single click it, okay now click the top bar up there, wait you've minimized it, okay go to that bottom bar again and click the tile, the tile that says Google Chrome, yes, no just single click it or it will go away again, okay now go to..."

Anything else like adding a printer, changing a printer, printing from a printer, saving a file, uploading a file, creating a bookmark, opening our ERP software, and God forbid using our ERP software (which legitimately sucks, so I understand) is just so far beyond the majority of people that I end up doing that or showing them how to do it more often that I do my actual job.
[automerge]1575127035[/automerge]

Why not? If you can use Windows or MacOS, I don't see why it would be difficult to use something like the Cinnamon DE. Its very familiar. As for software, browsers like FireFox or LibreOffice behave and work in the same way. I think people who would switch to linux will not face more difficulty than those who switch from Windows->Mac or opposite. I am talking about the "friendly" distros.

It's not hard to learn for people who have a modicum of technical knowledge and are already interested in learning how to do it. But I think the Linux crowd vastly overestimates how many they are. Most people don't care about their OS. Most people I work with don't even know what an operating system is.

It's very, very difficult for tech people to understand how a normal person uses and thinks about a computer. Absolutely no knowledge, no matter how trivial, can be taken for granted. I'm constantly arguing with our IT folks to simplify things because they have no concept of what the actual user is capable of doing unassisted.

 

[skaertus]

I know as a mac user sometimes I am let down to know some software is not available for MacOS, I was wondering if Linux users are in the same boat. I know the basics are covered like office suite and browser, but is there anything else you found not available on Linux?

I heard you can run Windows software via wine but not sure if this is a real solution or just half-baked one.

Well, my experience is perhaps different from the other users in this thread.

I tried to switch to Linux at least four times in the past, and none of them worked for me. And it was because of lack fo software.

I suppose my use of computers is completely different from the one of other users. I am no programmer and I tend to use flagship software, especially for office.

Microsoft Office is absolutely indispensable for me, and I struggle to use the Mac version, which I find inferior to the Windows version. Linux lacks Microsoft Office. There is LibreOffice and other alternatives which are good, but fall short of the real thing. Microsoft Office for Windows is state-of-the-art office software, and Microsoft Office for Mac, although inferior, is the only thing that can replace it.

Plus, there are other software which are not available for Linux, such as Adobe Reader. I am not really a fan of open source software, as I usually find them less polished than proprietary software. Most of the software just looks amateurish, to begin with the interface of the operating system. Windows and macOS are polished and designed by professionals. Most of the time, Linux interface seems designed by some amateur enthusiasts who deem themselves better than people hired by Microsoft or Apple.

To sum it up, I ended up giving up Linux, because of software.

 

[MacBH928]

It's very, very difficult for tech people to understand how a normal person uses and thinks about a computer. Absolutely no knowledge, no matter how trivial, can be taken for granted. I'm constantly arguing with our IT folks to simplify things because they have no concept of what the actual user is capable of doing unassisted.

I know and have seen people like that, they are called computer illiterate. I do not make fun of them because I am "illiterate" in other areas too, say like opening a car's hood. I don't expect people to know how to configure their office's VLAN's, but if you don't know how Google Chrome icon looks like or that you have to click the "X" symbol to close the window, seems like you shouldn't be working using a computer in the first place.

No, I do not expect people like that to use Linux. I do not expect them to be able to use any OS really.

I tried to switch to Linux at least four times in the past, and none of them worked for me. And it was because of lack fo software.

Microsoft Office is absolutely indispensable for me,

To sum it up, I ended up giving up Linux, because of software.

we agree, the problem is lack of software. That being said, I doubt Microsoft will release an Office version for a Linux. That would be like selling your hanging rope, losing their OS monopoly will have a butterfly effect on all their other services/products.

I guess there will always be a couple of "advantageous" apps unique to each system, like Office for Windows and Final Cut to MacOS, and I guess KDE for Linux.

 

[MacBH928]

You know, all of this isn't to say that making Mint popular among the normies isn't possible, it certainly is, but it's unlikely.

But at the end of the day, I just don't see Linux making any serious headway in the normie market. I like to be optimistic about most things, but in this case, I'm more of a realist.

Even then, I have my doubts that it would be as successful as some might hope it to be.

You would be correct if we were living in the year 1992. I have my reasons against this, its a little bit of a chicken and egg thing. I believe it is going to have a snowball effect, we just have to give i the first push down the hill. Here are some solutions.

1)I believe historically that Linux has been being developed to be more compatible, easier, and market share growing(albeit slowly but it is). If the trend continues, then it is only going to get bigger.

2)I believe in the build it and they will come ideology. If we have a Linux version with the basic software (we are somewhat there) more people will adopt it(we are seeing this already), the more they adopt it, the more they "word of mouth" it, the more they do that the more the user base grows. Once the user base grows it will bring the attention to software vendors to profit from that "niche". Maybe like Affinity on iOS which people started to use because Photoshop is late to the party. The more software developers fill more "niche", the more it will attract switchers. And it will snowball. The fact that people are getting concerned over their privacy and the bloat and nuisance that Windows is, is only pushing people that way.

3)I don't have the numbers but I would like to believe that there are more Linux Desktop users today than Mac users in 1992. In that time the Mac was an option(actually the "normies" better option) , and it had software and software vendors backing it up and profiting from it. So why not on the larger Linux user base we have today? There is a video by Steve Jobs where he mentions that there was a software developer that was doing just fine selling software for NextStep OS.

4)We do not have to beat Windows market share, we just have to reach a point where Linux is a 3rd viable alternative. MacOS has only like 15% market share, not only does it have the big vendors backup, it has its own exclusive software!

The amount of programmers we have today and resources for learning it, the tools like GitHub, the internet, the high speed internet, the multimedia communication tools (for tutorials and advocating), the online money transfer(for purchasing and donating), and the cheapness and abundance of computers today will make all this possible.

If we were living in 1992 yes, the chances are near 0. Programmers are scarce, no means of communicating(or expensive), extremely difficult money transfer, most people probably don't own a computer in the first place, distribution of software will be on physical medium (expensive) then mailing it(expensive and time consuming), and advocating for it will be via paid ads through mainstream media (Extremely expensive).

What you say is right, but I believe today we have the tools and technology to solve the challenges you presented. We just have to give it the "push".

 

[skaertus]

we agree, the problem is lack of software. That being said, I doubt Microsoft will release an Office version for a Linux. That would be like selling your hanging rope, losing their OS monopoly will have a butterfly effect on all their other services/products.

I guess there will always be a couple of "advantageous" apps unique to each system, like Office for Windows and Final Cut to MacOS, and I guess KDE for Linux.

Well, I do not think Microsoft will release Office for Linux, but for different reasons.

I do not think Office for Linux would end Microsoft Windows dominance. People already do not pay for Windows, as it comes pre-installed in laptops. And people would have little incentive to uninstall Windows and install Linux instead. So I do not think this would be the most significant reason, although Microsoft certainly does not want to voluntarily foster competition.

Office is very complex software, which has evolved over the years. Microsoft has a dedicated team to develop Office for Mac, and it falls short of the Windows version, as it is has more bugs and less features. Microsoft took a long time to develop watered-down versions of Office for iOS and Android.

It would take Microsoft a lot of time and resources to develop a Linux version of Microsoft Office. And for what?

Macs are used by about 5% of computer users worldwide, and about 15% in the U.S. iOS and Android are widely used, by hundreds of millions worldwide. But Linux? Linux is a niche operating system, used by some 1-2% of computer users. Plus, people who already use Linux can live without Microsoft Office, so there may not really a demanding market for it. Sure, some people would buy Office for Linux. But it probably would not be worth the time and effort to develop it.

 

[Mikael H]

Well, I do not think Microsoft will release Office for Linux, but for different reasons.

I do not think Office for Linux would end Microsoft Windows dominance. People already do not pay for Windows, as it comes pre-installed in laptops. And people would have little incentive to uninstall Windows and install Linux instead. So I do not think this would be the most significant reason, although Microsoft certainly does not want to voluntarily foster competition.

Office is very complex software, which has evolved over the years. Microsoft has a dedicated team to develop Office for Mac, and it falls short of the Windows version, as it is has more bugs and less features. Microsoft took a long time to develop watered-down versions of Office for iOS and Android.

It would take Microsoft a lot of time and resources to develop a Linux version of Microsoft Office. And for what?

We actually do see Microsoft working its way over towards Linux in the server space: It’s currently more important to the company that developers use its cloud platforms than what operating system is being used by them.

I see a potential incentive for them to port some of their client-side software to Linux too; namely if enough developers start using various versions of Linux for their actual work and only use Microsoft’s productivity suites for the boring enterprisey stuff. For developers working this way, having a native app rather than having to log on to an RDS server or running a VM would be a distinctive quality of life improvement, making it way more likely that when they change jobs they’ll recommend Microsoft solutions to their new company’s problems rather than actively looking for less unattractive third-parties.

This of course is a big “if”.

 

[theluggage]

It would take Microsoft a lot of time and resources to develop a Linux version of Microsoft Office. And for what?

I see a potential incentive for them to port some of their client-side software to Linux too;

The most likely step in that direction would be to produce Linux versions of the Office Mobile apps (pedant point: GNU/X11/Qt/Whatever/Linux - they already run on Linux-kernel-based OSs like Android and Chrome OS) or push the browser-based Office Online as a solution. Bear in mind that the biggest current competitor to MS Office is probably Google Docs.

Of course, they're hugely cut down vs. the "real" versions, but would do the job for vast numbers of people -
while many of the users who need the full versions actually need the sort of obscure legacy features that probably haven't even made it into Mac Office, let alone any putative Linux version - those users probably won't be getting rid of their X86 Windows boxes any time soon.

For forward-looking Enterprise use, online (or intranet-based) apps have all sorts of attractions anyway.

If you look at what MS have done with Visual Studio - "Visual Studio for Mac" isn't Visual Studio (its basically MonoDevelop/Xamarin Studio rebranded) and neither is the PC/Mac/Linux "Visual Studio Code" (which is a browser-based IDE running in Chromium, bundled up to look like a standalone app - the truly online 'cloud' version has recently appeared) - the original Visual Studio doesn't look to be leaving its niche for native X86 Windows development.

I know as a mac user sometimes I am let down to know some software is not available for MacOS, I was wondering if Linux users are in the same boat. I know the basics are covered like office suite and browser, but is there anything else you found not available on Linux?

There's a simple rule: research the software you need first and then get whatever system runs it best. If the answer is MacOS you'll have to weigh the limited choice of expensive hardware against your software needs.

Most Linux software is Free/Open Source - for some things, the free Linux version is the industry standard. For some things, the free Linux version isn't worth the asking price. (Sometimes, both of those apply ) So you really need to ask specific questions.

The sticking point with Linux is always going to be those gadgets and devices that depend on proprietary drivers or configuration software - they always come with Windows software, sometimes Mac software but rarely Unix software.

However, sorry, the GUI in Linux is fundamentally substandard compared to either Windows or MacOS. It's there, its functional, it does the job, but it is behind the game in terms of responsiveness and discoverability, and the underlying technology is still mostly descended from the clunky, over-engineered X Window system (if you've got a black belt in X you can probably make it do amazing things, but for mere mortals simply running more than one display can be a challenge - and things like 150% scaling for 4k displays are still 'experimental' for most distros). Personally, my choice would still be to use Linux for what it is good at (server stuff and programming) with Windows or MacOS as the "front end".

 

[MacBH928]

However, sorry, the GUI in Linux is fundamentally substandard compared to either Windows or MacOS. It's there, its functional, it does the job, but it is behind the game in terms of responsiveness and discoverability, and the underlying technology is still mostly descended from the clunky, over-engineered X Window system (if you've got a black belt in X you can probably make it do amazing things, but for mere mortals simply running more than one display can be a challenge - and things like 150% scaling for 4k displays are still 'experimental' for most distros). Personally, my choice would still be to use Linux for what it is good at (server stuff and programming) with Windows or MacOS as the "front end".

I find your comment interesting as I have heard many people prefer Linux GUI because of its "responsiveness" and bloatless GUI.

The idea of this thread to see if Linux can be a viable alternative to Windows/MacOS, as security/privacy is becoming a real concern and people have no choice currently to choose from. There were some solutions for other products like Firefox for Chrome, ProtonMail for email, and VLC for viewing multimedia but the core OS still is the problem.

 

[throAU]

I know as a mac user sometimes I am let down to know some software is not available for MacOS, I was wondering if Linux users are in the same boat. I know the basics are covered like office suite and browser, but is there anything else you found not available on Linux?

I heard you can run Windows software via wine but not sure if this is a real solution or just half-baked one.

I've gone non-dual boot linux at home on my desktop.

To answer your question: it depends. Video software is not as good. Audio software is not as good. The gaming situation is a little better than Mac.

WINE is pretty decent these days. But it depends on the app.


Is there any particular software you're wondering about a replacement or compatibility for?


As to GUI in Linux... gnome and KDE are both fast unless something goes pear shaped. They're as fast or faster than macOS on decent hardware. Some design decisions are... questionable in some UIs but the big thing is you can customise it as you see fit.

I'd say the GUI selection on Linux is as good and in some ways better than macOS to be honest. macOS has some pretty brain damaged GUI design decisions of its own, and at least with Linux you can change or extend it.

[automerge]1575260357[/automerge]

The idea of this thread to see if Linux can be a viable alternative to Windows/MacOS, as security/privacy is becoming a real concern and people have no choice currently to choose from.

It can be, for sure.

I've done it. Unless you have some specific niche application... you can use linux as a daily driver quite easily.

And if you DO have a niche application, you may be able to get either it (running in WINE or a VM) or an alternative that is "good enough" working to make abandoning Windows or macOS feasible.

Linux as a general purpose OS is definitely a feasible choice in 2019. You just need to take the choice and spend a little time adjusting. As a network admin i run it as the host OS at work (For a Windows VM lab environment), at home i run Linux only and do all my "desktop stuff" with it.


As far as office apps go - a 365 subscripion if you need to be compatible with Office users - or Libreoffice. Even a lot of Windows businesses are using either the web apps or mobile apps these days because of cloud data availability. Office is not an issue at all.

More and more apps are browser based now. And Linux runs Chrome (or Brave browser, or Firefox) faster than any other platform, pretty much. Like... noticeably faster.

 

[SandboxGeneral]

@MacBH928 I'm curious, what computer/OS are you currently using and what are your most used/primary applications as well?

It appears that you're exploring a switch and looking for options by asking these Linux questions. I think that's great and it shows you're doing your homework to make informed decisions.

 

[2984839]

I find your comment interesting as I have heard many people prefer Linux GUI because of its "responsiveness" and bloatless GUI.

The idea of this thread to see if Linux can be a viable alternative to Windows/MacOS, as security/privacy is becoming a real concern and people have no choice currently to choose from. There were some solutions for other products like Firefox for Chrome, ProtonMail for email, and VLC for viewing multimedia but the core OS still is the problem.

"Linux GUI" is pretty much a meaningless term because there are so many options. There's everything from full fledged desktop environments (GNOME, KDE, XFCE) that aim for a more traditional Windows or macOS like experience, to barebones window managers that do little more than provide a way to run and manage X applications (evilwm, ratpoison, cwm, and many others). Both can be fast, but the latter are exceptionally so.