How can we make Linux more appealing as "just works"?
How can we make Linux more appealing as "just works"?
Let's say just like for example like MacOS. It's awesome we have so many tools but at the same time lack of some kind of standardization can seem like nothing works and you get overwhelmed. I'm asking for people that want to support Linux or not so tech-savy people.
Look at the Steam Deck as an example:
- Linux is preinstalled
- Integrated hardware and software
- Immutable OS that is very hard to bork
- UI is Windows-like which is familiar to the target market
- Good value for the price
- Offered by a well-known and well-liked brand
- Marketed and advertised to the target market
We need more Linux devices like this to gain market share.
I’m a very casual Linux user and in my experience, I’ve NEVER had a problem with a documented solution that didn’t require going down a rabbit hole of other references.
Something like this: “To get the trackpad to work with Ubuntu, make sure you’ve installed the hergelbergelXX package.” (No link, find it on your own!)
Visit the HergelBergelXX page. To install Hergelbergel on Ubuntu, you must install the framisPortistan Package Manager. (No link!)
On the FramisPortistan GitHub readme, we discover it requires the JUJU3 database system to be installed. “JUJU3 may cause conflicts with installed USB devices under Ubuntu” JUJU2, which shipped with Ubuntu, is no longer supported. Also we recommend Archie&Jughead Linux over other distributions.
And this essentially never stops.
All of this is comparatively a happy result—I actually DID post a question on linuxnoobs about getting my trackpad to work with Ubuntu… and have not had a single reply. I have no idea how to find out how to make it work.
Simple, start teaching it in elementary school all the way up through high school. Apple did it long ago and got apple users out of those kids. Microsoft does it now, and now you have Windows users. Just need the computer education to be Linux centric from the start. It's not that it's different, it's that it's not what they grew up with and were taught.
Atomic OSes should be evangelized more aggressively to laypersons. IMO, they’re great for 3 specific use cases:
- gaming (bazzite) - personally, I want my gaming box to “just work”
- thin clients/low-powered laptops used as an entry point to your homelab or other remote systems - again, I like having at least one fairly bulletproof and super stable system to use as a human:homelab gateway/admin machine
- non-techies. If the update fails, just roll back. Can’t remember if that’s generally an automated recovery process or not, but that sort of idiot-proofing is precisely what the general public needs in the context of Linux. Because there are a lot of idiots out there.
On top of being preinstalled, we also need google search-able instructions that avoid the terminal altogether. People are afraid of the terminal, it doesn't matter why, it just is.
Currently, most solutions to linux problems come in the form of terminal commands. We would have to start creating a whole new troubleshooting forum where instructions avoid the terminal and are just lists of buttons to press in a GUI. Probably helpful screenshots too.
Of course I have no idea if some things even have GUIs at all, like configuring user groups and permissions or firewall settings, someone would need to make them. Not to mention every DE or program would need a different set of instructions, GNOME or KDE, firewalld or iptables. It'll be a lot of work.
Need hardware with it pre installed with a reason to buy other than because it has Linux
Maybe use the lack of a requirement for a Windows license to bring the price to performance ratio down
If they're really performant machines also helps break the idea Linux is only for old and slow machines, I only ever used to put it on laptops as they were reaching the end of their usefulness, the moment I put it on my pc and a new laptop it changed my perception on it entirely
I also think the majority of technical users still use windows, maybe we should concentrate on getting them first and maybe we'll see more support
you can't because it's explicitly against the whole point of having endless choices. when everyone works on something different, the quality spreads out to where it's mostly just mediocre stuff across the board.
hardware compatibility is also a huge problem. for everyone that says "it works fine for me" there are a thousand others for whom it does not.
Needs to be pre installed, most people don't know how to reset their PC, let alone install a new OS.
It's current year, I should never have to touch the terminal for anything. I don't care that it's powerful, my brain is already full of windows knowledge and I don't want to have to google what command I need to perform basic functions. Everything needs guis. If there's a gui, I can figure it out and also discover tools I didn't know about along the way, which allows me to solve future problems without going insane.
That's popular sentiment though, so how about one that I don't see often: Add options to allow windows like behavior. For example, middle click paste is the bane of my existence. I should be able to change it to middle click scroll os wide, not just in firefox. I know that there's a hacky workaround to kinda make it work, but it sucks.
Most people have had great answers coming from the company side of things. I'll take it from the standpoint of individuals like us helping someone linux curious see the light, while still having the "just works" experience.
Do not give them any choices. None. Put them on your stable distro of choice for a new user, call whatever that is "Linux", and be on your way.
But why? Isn't that antithetical to everything we value? Yes and no. We value choice almost above anything else, but that doesn't "just work" for most people. Which of those do you value more?
Thank you thank you thank you for posing this question.
This is the biggest issue by far with open source stuff in general, and as a non-programmer who wants to use more and more of it, user unfriendliness hamstrings so much.
I don't know the answers but I can tell you for a fact that if open source in general is serious about broader adoption, this needs to be occupying 50% of everybody's open source discussion time, at least.
What I know is the standard "fuck you read my 19 pages of 1s and 0s" is the wrong answer.
Maybe good design is just really hard. I don't know, I've never tried to do it. Seems like the sort of thing that might take three thousands iterations.
Software, 1,000%. I love linux and daily drive it. But when I have videos to edit, photos to rework, or collateral to design I have a windows laptop with professional grade tools to do the job.
I'm sorry, gimp is hot garbage. There isn't a pro-grade, open source video editing tool or anything close. Inkscape is useable in a pinch. Scribus is useless.
Not everyone is a multimedia creative professional, but most software on linux never quite have the features you need, are no longer maintained, or will be useful in ten years.
That said, I'd still rather break out the laptop when doing client work than daily drive MacOS or Windows 11. Either way the barrier for most users is that linux almost works.
I have been forced to use mac now for like a year, and I don't get the whole "just works" opinion of it. Like I have had so many issues with just basic stuff. Turning off mouse acceleration and the mouse still feels all slimy. Highest mouse speed is so slow and setting it higher requires some crazy tricks, which also does not work consistently through boots. It can't wake up a lot of monitors, I have to turn them off and on manually. If it cannot connect to a monitor properly but tries, it like disables your keyboard for a few seconds while trying. Some items in the settings menu take a long time to load, as in if I reboot, log in, open settings, there is no mouse settings.
As others have said, macOS does not “just work” anymore.
I am primary tech support for a few “normy” users including my mother and wife. My wife, the more technical and capable of the two, uses macOS. My mother uses Windows. My wife requires substantially more tech support. Worse, the issues are often complete mysteries to me like “why is everything so slow” and it turning out that some OS level process is consuming huge amounts of memory and / or CPU. Web searches reveal lots of people with similar issues but no real insight into what to do about it or why it is happening. I have moved OS versions just to solve this kind of crap on Mac. Another problem is software not working on older versions of the OS.
I am no Windows lover but, once I show my mother how to do something, I never hear from her. Every once in a while I stop by to marvel at how many updates need to be applied but that is about it. She is in the Windows 10 that I installed for her many years ago now. It just works.
From a non techy perspective, having what is used and installed being secure is a big one. I am new to Linux Mint. Mostly user friendly until something gets corrupted or suddenly can not be verified.
Looking for why is not always simple, and there are some explanations/instructions easier to understand than others.
I preface most of my searches with Linux mint (whatever I am searching for) for dummies. This helps some.
Honestly Linux does work pretty much just as well as MacOS if you run it on hardware thats super well supported and that tons of linux users use. MacOS has integration with its hardware because its all made by the same company. They only have to support a few models of computer.
If you installed Linux Mint today on a Thinkpad t480, and on some obscure weird laptop with rarely used hardware your gonna get 1 install that just works out of the box and your gonna get 1 that you have to hunt for drivers, and do tons of work on. Its just the nature of being able to use any hardware. Some will work better than others.
If you want an example of how to increase adoption you pick a line of computers thats of high quality and have them be supported by the community a ton. Then you convince the company that makes these computers to ship a version of them with linux pre-installed, and potentially help atleast with funding the development of whatever distro they use.
If your average user bought a laptop, opened it, turned it on, and it had linux on it and worked relatively well, they are never going to change it. Its not a normal thing to just change your OS most people don't even know that you can do that. I gave my grandmother a linux mint laptop and she thinks its windows.
Software-wise, it seems that the relatively fast adoption of flatpaks and other containerized formats somewhat solves the typical dependency hell that was so common in Linux just a few years back (and to some extent still is an issue today depending on your distro and use case). The hardware support side is a little harder. That's going to be up to vendors to play nice with the Kernel team and/or introduce reasonable userland software that doesn't break the golden rule. Until Linux gets more market share the latter isn't likely to happen. A nice side benefit of the emergence of immutable and/or atomic distros is that users can play around and try things with much lower risk of bricking their systems, so I'd also consider that a step closer in the "it just works" department.
Kinda don't think you can its one of the beauties of Linux, there's so many different flavors of it. Best thing that would've helped me as a beginner would've been like a collection of all the wiki's and basic knowledge in a single space instead of searching through different sites for a problem or terminal commands, which I bet exists but I just never looked too hard. Also documentation of common problems would've been big for me (especially for older devices) like drivers no longer being supported by kernels and solutions like using the open source version instead.
The issue starts at the fact that it's difficult to find a computer sold by a common major distributor with Linux already installed, nor does Linux have any marketing aside from word of mouth to compete with the aggressive Microsoft/Apple duopoly.
The threshold to entry begins at simply having the technical prowess to install an alternative operating system on one's computer, which I don't believe a good majority of people are even capable of. Before that, people also need an incentive to transition in the first place. They've probably been using their current OS for a good portion of their life and are more than comfortable with it without putting themselves through another learning curve.
The average person isn't considering an alternative to what they're already using, and if they are, it usually isn't Linux. The biggest problem isn't appeal or ease of use; it's exposure and immediate accessibility.
That said, performance and simplicity would be an excellent selling point for Linux. It would be absolutely worth banking on the open-source nature of it to appeal to a growing demographic of people interested in privacy-oriented tech as well.
I think it should be: "Software that is yours"
Overall, I think more focus should be put on consolidating similar projects.
Do we really need 6 different window managers that follow the same design logic?
Do we really need each major distro to have its own package manager?
How many image and PDF viewers do we need? How many music players?
Can we convince Ubuntu that no one wants snaps and they are wasting developer resources.
The freed up capacity should be focused on better windows app compatibility. Something akin to Valve's push in gaming.
The problem is, that no operating system "just works". It also highly depend on what the person wants to achieve, and if there are any pre experience with computers or even relying on existing software or specific hardware. My recommendation is not to tell people the illusion of "just works" and be honest upfront. People should learn how it works, what to expect and if tradeoffs, time and resources are worth it.
Same is true for the other way too. Does Windows "just works"? Especially if someone switches from Linux to Windows.
Rather, we should teach the reasons to switch and encourage that decision. In example why it matters to have control over your system, rather than the company has control over it (MacOS and Windows) or why spying on you is bad (Windows). And encourage giving up something you are used to (and maybe paid). Sometimes its okay to use a program that is not as good as Photoshop. Sometimes its okay to give up playing a videogame you like (and maybe associated with friends playing that game with you). But most people are not ready to do it, because that is associated with lowering quality of life.
I switched in 2008 from Windows XP to Ubuntu. I know these struggles. And they are not over yet. This is an ongoing task between my brother and me too, and he was using the Steam Deck, but decided to go with Windows 11 with the recent build. It was almost there, but there is always a butt. I say, don't tell people that "Linux just works". No operating system "just works".
An easy way to import/export Flatpaks would be really convenient. On Windows, I can easily move around software using a usb drive to a computer that may not be connected to the internet. I'd have no clue how to do that on Linux aside from AppImages
But due to fragmentation etc. I'd guess that such portable flatpaks would be huge, as they'd need to carry all dependencies in case the other end is missing some
MacOS being a bad example here since Apple only needs to make its OS work on a very small set of hardware that they control wheras Linux (and Windows, yes) need to work on probably hundreds of thousand if not millions of devices (including Macs 👌) with at least the same amount of peripherals combined in almost any imaginable way. That's a completely different task.
Linux is a tool that big corporate entities have profited greatly from for many years, and will continue to. Same with BSD, Apache, Docker, MySQL, Postgres, SSH...
Valve, Sys76, Framework, etc. Are proving that using Linux to serve an end user market is also profitable, and are capable of supporting enterprise use-cases.
I understand that there may be specific problems to solve wrt improving adoptability, usability, compatibility, etc., but Linux is doing more than ok within the context of the FOSS ecosystem (and increasingly without).
Your thinking is slightly skewed, IMHO. Linux doesn't have an inherent incentive to compete with MacOS or MS, and if it did, it would be subject to the same pressures that encourage bad behavior like spying on users, creating walled gardens, and so forth.
So reading all of your responses
- Tested and preinstalled hardware
- One resource to solve the issue not many
- Customizablity when needed
- Easy rollback when something breaks
- Changing people mindset that Linux isn't for desktops
Does anyone have more?
ChromeOS does this well because it's android, a walled garden that users aren't allowed to break. You can buy it at Walmart, and it works well.
Other big "consumer" distro projects (Debian, Ubuntu, fedora, rhel, etc) are similar, especially if you're installing stable releases on hardware that is supported.
The question for me is what do users want their OS to do? My guess is internet, office, print, scan, photos, games, updates, and get out of the way. Almost all big distros will give you that experience already, as long as you don't expect to play Windows games or pick a specialized gaming distro.
Users who want to step outside using supported repos are back to googling for a solution when things are broken, and should see themselves as part of the tech-savvy group that need to fend for themselves.
It would be nice if it was possible to simply go to a website, check off on the stuff you want and then get a full package.
I liked the idea of AV Linux, because it comes in a bundle of stuff that I need, but it also comes with a lot stuff that I don't need, and I'm not sure the desktop is my choice. It also didn't really work at the time I tried it.(Some years ago).
So.. if I, a stupid user, could simply go to a website, check mark at the desktop, check off which office package, music apps, browser, etc.etc. and then get a download of that in one go where it's all set-up and works, it would be a lot easier than having to go through the process of installing the OS and then installing/removing apps, and then making it work..
Like, let's say I want a PC just for music creation, I should be able to download the the OS with the DAW of my choice, all the VSTis and potentially also the most common free sound banks. In one file.
If I wanted an office PC, I should be able to get the OS, the office suite of choice and all the misc. PDF tools, email client and whatnot of choice. All in one go.
Windows and macOS sort of came with everything before, but these days they're just as annoying to set up as any Linux distribution. Linux as a whole could take advantage of that situation by offering a prepackaged but custom installation.
Of course it would also help if someone made a Linux installer for windows, so users didn't have to use windows to create a bootable USB. I think this is the step that normal users hesitate on. I don't know if it's possible, but it ought to be possible from software to partion the disc and install dual boot or something.
It is very hard, time consuming and boring to iron out those finishing issues in any software product. You need team of people being paid for that.
When doing it for fun, I just go until it works and until it is fun. As soon as I come to those last 20% I never touch it anymore.
So ai doubt it will happen until more companies start paying decelopera to do it. But I don't see the business model in that, so I doubt it will get better fast.
By promoting the distros that have this as a goal, such as Mint.
I would suggest Ubuntu in this category, but... eww..
Fedora Kinote just works.
- Idiot proofing
- Automation, integration and premade scripts and GUI tools for the use of tools such as wine and other pain point relief software
- Idiot proofing
- Decrease choice fatigue by decreasing the number of choices visible by default as much as possible (Ubuntu is an okay example/starting point in my opinion)
- Make a one-stop-shop wiki or equivalent with the specific purpose of giving explanations to non Linux-savvy people
I think that the proliferation of software/app centers is a great development when it comes to package management. Guides should mention them as an option to install whatever packages are needed, as a lot of people are clearly afraid of terminals.
Which leads to the “more GUI tools” point, which I'm sure everyone knows by now.
Also, you know how Windows update is so aggressive with getting you to update? That's for a reason.
Immutable distros like Silverblue or Bazzite are the only path I see that can work for normies. However flatpak itself has to mature more, theming anomalies need to be dealt with somehow for example.
Mint is only good to ease a technically inclined person into the linux world.
More appealing? Linux runs basically all server infrastructure where even Microsoft bent the knee for Azure & Windows Subsystem for Linux. If we are talking about Desktop Linux, it will remain popular with those building software for easier/better dev tooling & wanting to better understand the systems their production code is run on. As software becomes more intergral to our lives & knowing how to write/debug it rises, folks will slowly keep trickling in as the have for decades where more & more software is treating Linux (& the web, & since BSDs, et al. are running similar software such as GTK they are also included) as a primary target. The other desktop OSs continue to shoot themselves in the foot injecting ads into the OS or denying system-level access to the machine you own.
A would say a better focus is mobile Linux… as casual users have migrated away from desktop OSs, where Android & iOS’s walls are holding them captive.
It depends on which user and their workflow. For example, Graphics Designer use Photoshop compare to GIMP because of native CMYK for printing as well as non-destructive effects. Most people will be fine using GIMP.
I bring this up as I tend to see people on Lemmy and even in online space that talks about open source that would bitch about "normies" being too stubborn for not trying Linux or any open-source projects in general but never think about how much compromise they had to do if they do go down the open-source route.
Good S0ix support. At the moment, Linux mostly fails to sleep correctly on modern S0ix laptops, which happens to be most modern laptops.
This means the battery drains incredibly fast, and S0ix features aren't being used, which is unfortunate as it has potential for quick wake, lid closed actions and limiting battery drain while asleep (since S0ix can eventually hibernate automatically from a sleep state)
Also the boot loader could be improved, systemd-boot needs to support secure boot natively so we can be rid of the slow, ancient and scary-looking GRUB.
I think Linux works so good right now, that most of the appeal will come from third party vendors supporting Linux. The few anticheats and big apps like photoshop and sony vegas are used by many and are still a big obstacle which Linux can't magically fix that easily.
What I've also noticed makes it appeal a lot to the people around me, is that when suggesting Linux, I also offer them tech support free of charge for whatever problem they have.
Fedora has been "just working" for me for the last couple of years. It is my go to for older relatives for that very reason.
Automatic updates are essential. and unfortunately, it should not be an option to keep an old version of something, because through shared libraries it will hold back the entire system. fatpaks should be used for those programs.
Fortunately it's getting there, like KDE is working on it too, but it's still got a long way.
It does just work for normal users.
Normies use the installed os. Just install a browser and office suite, thats all the need and care about.
Linux actually needs to just work first
I don't think we do, but that's a feature, not a bug. Here's why:
-
There was a great post a few days ago about how Linux is a digital 3rd Space. It's about spending time cultivating the system and building a relationship with it, instead of expecting it to be transparent while you use it. This creates a positive relationship with your computer and OS, seeing it as more a labor of love than an impediment to being as productive as possible (the capitalist mindset).
-
Nothing "just works." That's a marketing phrase. Windows and Mac only "just work" if the most you ever do is web-browsing and note-taking in notepad. Anything else and you incite cognitive dissonance: hold onto the delusion at the price of doing what you're trying to do, or accept that these systems aren't as good as their marketing? The same thread I mentioned earlier talked about how we give Linux more lenience because of the relationship we have with it, instead of seeing it as just a tool for productivity.
-
Having a barrier of entry keeps general purpose communities like this from being flooded with off-topic discourse that achieves nothing. And no, I'm not just talking about the Yahoo Answers-level questions like "how to change volume Linux????" Think stuff like "What's the most stargender-friendly Linux distro?" and "How do we make Linux profitable?" and "what Linux distro would Daddy Trump use?" and "where my other Linux simping /pol/t*rds at (socialist Stallman****rs BTFO)???" Even if there is absolutely perfect moderation and you never see these posts directly, these people would still be coming in and finding ways that skirt the rules to inject this discourse into these communities; and instead of being dismissed as trolls, there would be many, many people who think we should hear them out (or at least defend their right to Free Speech).
-
Finally, it already "just works" for the aforementioned note-taking and web-browsing. The only thing that's stopping more not so tech-savvy people is that it's not the de facto pre-installed OS on the PC you pick up from Best Buy (and not Walmart, because you want people to think you're tech-savvy, so you go to the place with a dedicated "geek squad"). The only way it starts combating Windows in this domain is by marketing agreements with mainstream hardware manufacturers (like Dell and HP); this means that the organization responsible for representing Linux would need the money to make such agreements... Which would mean turning it into a for-profit OS. Which would necessitate closing the source. Which would mean it just becomes another proprietary OS that stands for all that Linux is against.
-