> But I think its worth thinking about the likelihood that a "slower" computer running Linux could probably serve the actual user better in terms of "getting stuff done." Moreover, I think we're pretty close to "beauty" parity here as well.
This is just not true. I'm sorry but I've used linux on the desktop many times, using many different distros, and many different desktop environments. It's shiny and pretty when you first install and then very quickly you run into apps that don't follow that design methodology and it takes you out of it. Desktop linux is not ready for average users and honestly it may never be. Also "getting stuff done." and desktop linux do not belong in the same sentence. I've personally spent and watched coworkers spend hours and hours tinkering with graphics cards drivers or other random quirks. Linux is amazing, don't get me wrong, it's a workhorse with immense power and the ability to tinker to your heart's content BUT most users, myself included, don't want to put in the upfront and ongoing work to keep it in tip-top condition.
I will forever use linux on servers and enjoy every minute of it but for the desktop linux is nowhere near ready for primetime. I've watched too many people online and in-person preach about linux on the desktop and then watched them having to spend tons of time tinkering with it so they can "get stuff done". Is it possible to be productive on the linux desktop? Absolutely but I value my time way too highly to spend the effort to make that a reality.
Just to present another point of view (from my subjective experience). Yes it is possible to be productive on the linux desktop.
I'm using Fedora 33 on my personal laptop with nvidia drivers. And never needed to install any drivers for my work laptop.
Upgraded both laptops 3 times from Fedora 30 without a hitch.
And it's a one step process using a graphical interface [1].
What I'm saying is that (in my own experience), linux of today is very different from linux of 10 or 20 years ago. I've had my share of problems before, installing drivers for graphic cards and modems back in the "00"s but I think that most linux distros have come a long way since then.
Linux may not be the best choice "getting stuff done" for an average user. But, from my own experience, for a software developer it's a good choice. And in the company I work for, most developers have hp elitebooks with fedora installed. (I'm picking software developers for the comparison because they represent a significant portion of macbook pro users).
As a new Linux user, I don’t think I agree, at least not 100%. I picked Linux Mint, and found it quite easy to install and maintain on my AMD desktop. All the drivers were already there.
The only difficulty I had was installing Docker, but an hour later I had that and my other required programs installed and I was able to be productive.
It took me less than three hours to make a USB stick, install, and get my programs needed for me to code again.
That said, I had also tried Ubuntu and found it a not-so-great experience. I had to look for a few different drivers and learn how to install them from the command line. After that it was fine, but I didn’t like the UI and didn’t really want to spend the time learning how to tweak it to my liking.
So I think the right distro really matters in the case of making Linux attractive to common users. IMO Cinnamon/ Mint is the one for that.
> * I've personally spent and watched coworkers spend hours and hours tinkering with graphics cards drivers or other random quirks*
This is like complaining that a Hackintosh is buggy and requires tinkering. If you want a polished experience, buy computers with first class Linux support from vendors. Even better if you buy machines with Linux preinstalled.
> Desktop linux is not ready for average users
If ChromeOS would suit a user's needs, then so would a polished Linux distribution like Ubuntu with Firefox or Chrome, most of the time.
What are we meant do with these ever constant, hand-wavey "linux bad" posts with exactly ZERO specifics. They mean nothing to all of us reading this comment on Linux systems that give us less fuss than Windows (and I know because I game on it) and there's nothing actionable. It's just a "nuh uh!!" after someone suggests there might be a better tool for the job.
Also, I really can't sympathize with this implication that not following the platform UI principles is somehow fundamentally "breaking" the user experience. It's virtually impossible to find two mainstream, popular, "good-UX" Win10 or OS X apps that follow some mythic standard UI.
This is just not true. I'm sorry but I've used linux on the desktop many times, using many different distros, and many different desktop environments. It's shiny and pretty when you first install and then very quickly you run into apps that don't follow that design methodology and it takes you out of it. Desktop linux is not ready for average users and honestly it may never be. Also "getting stuff done." and desktop linux do not belong in the same sentence. I've personally spent and watched coworkers spend hours and hours tinkering with graphics cards drivers or other random quirks. Linux is amazing, don't get me wrong, it's a workhorse with immense power and the ability to tinker to your heart's content BUT most users, myself included, don't want to put in the upfront and ongoing work to keep it in tip-top condition.
I will forever use linux on servers and enjoy every minute of it but for the desktop linux is nowhere near ready for primetime. I've watched too many people online and in-person preach about linux on the desktop and then watched them having to spend tons of time tinkering with it so they can "get stuff done". Is it possible to be productive on the linux desktop? Absolutely but I value my time way too highly to spend the effort to make that a reality.