I have worked with Linux for years. Debian GNU / Linux has been running on my laptop for half a year. I can handle it.
However, if I compare it with the previous operating system Windows 7, there are numerous problems. These are not u. A. Due to the fact that it is Linux, but the fact that software support is insufficient. Essential applications like Microsoft Office are missing. And many other programs that I sometimes need elsewhere are missing or are only offered by the manufacturer for Ubuntu, but not Debian, which sometimes leads to incompatibility in the libraries. I now have a Windows VM that I can call up via RDP.
My conclusion: Linux seems to be more of a handicraft system. It is not suitable for use on the home computer, especially when it comes to working with people who use Windows software and can't be dissuaded from it. I say that as someone who is not a newbie to Linux.
Could it be that Linux is used more by those who can cope with it on their own, but are never dependent on collaborating on projects or the like with others?
It always depends on what people want to do and which environment they are used to!
A Windows user is totally overwhelmed with Linux, but a Linux user with Windows is also ^^ + gg
This is not for "freaks"! Freaks - like me (!) - use systems like "BeOS" ;-)
Ubuntu is based on Debian?
However, Ubuntu is more tailored to normal users.
I used Linux Mint for a while and missed little of Windows. Linux is very well positioned with Libre, especially in the office area, also when it comes to compatibility. The only thing Linux can't do is to satisfy gamers, otherwise it is certainly not more difficult to use than Windows.
I prefer Debian to Ubuntu.
Linux is much older than Windoof:-)
Only Bill Gates was cleverer in terms of business… * grinz * … He understood how to spread his Windows operating system all over the world through the various accessory programs such as Office etc., which he "cheaply" threw and thus a "dependency" to create that makes a way past it almost impossible.
That's true, but Microsoft Office is not compatible enough with Libre Office and therefore not usable for companies dealing with CI… Unfortunately…
and the many millions of Zokkers, which I also belong to, have a hard time changing…
and some professional video editing programs only run on Windows…
but at some point Microsoft will make many turn away from their operating system - hopefully soon, because then game manufacturers will also be forced to produce for Linux…
I don't think so… At the most, someone who thinks they don't have to change is overwhelmed, Linux is no more difficult to use than Windows and vice versa. Of course, you also have to deal with it.
I also use Debian - on servers since 1998, on the desktop since 2005.
I do various things with it:
Software development (professionally and privately, also jointly with other people) in various programming languages and for various target systems. (I also worked on Debian itself, on its installer.)
Manage servers
Write documents (from short texts to entire books, the latter of course not with an office package, but with LATEX)
Accounting, billing, cash register (with software developed by myself)
image editing
Create print products (flyers etc.)
Video editing
Music hobby studio recordings and mixing
Build telephone systems and access control systems
… And probably a lot more that I just can't think of right now.
And I'm completely satisfied with Linux. For some things, I don't know how I could do it with Windows.
Nothing takes me away from Linux anymore.
And I installed it for some friends. This is a lot less maintenance than Windows and they are happy.
I'm partly dependent on software that is not available for Linux. I don't choose that. That's why I just have a VM running, which I can address via RDP if necessary. There's the Remmina tool for Debian. Highly recommended.
That's not true. Windows has been around since 1985, the Linux kernel has existed since 1991. Unix has been around much longer than Windows.
And what is the LInux? Laugh… Just like Gates, it was all about rights, the good Mr. Thorwald called "his" program at that time… There are other derivatives… Just like Gates…
I would not classify it according to freaks, normal people etc., but according to purpose.
There's actually no alternative to Linux for servers. We would be with professional people who set up and maintain the systems and normal people who use the websites etc.
For gamers: Linux can be forgotten there, I agree with you. But Linux can't help it. Linux has everything that would be necessary, only the developers don't want to. You can already use a lot via Steam, but well.
For surfing the net: there's no alternative to Linux for security reasons. So many viruses that you get on Windows… It's no fun.
For Office: with Softmaker Office there's a good alternative when it comes to compatibility with MS Office, which I find LibreOffice very good. If MS someday adhered to its own guidelines, there would be no problems.
Audio and video editing and image editing: kdenlive, Audacity, JACK, GIMP, Krita. What more do you want. My condolences to everyone who works with Adobe. I read a summary of the security patches every month and shake it. Irresponsible.
DVDs and bluray: that's a big problem. DRM is a mess. But that is also up to the manufacturers who do not abide by global rules.
Programming: it depends on the target system. 😅
I can't think of any other areas of application.
The advantage that I have with Linux: I'm manufacturer-independent, license-independent, the system adapts to me (not the other way round, with MacOS pushing it to the extreme), and is compatible through the use of open standards.
I understand your frustration with Linux. But the problem is not with Linux, but with Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and other companies who want to bind their customers to the detriment of them (vendor lock in).
The Linux kernel only has something to do with the UNIX philosophy. It was rewritten from scratch. You just have to read Wikipedia. Enough.
Gates and jobs just stole.
So junk is no source for it at all lol
The basic structure of Linux is UNIX, which in 1991 had to be reprogrammed because of the new hardware that was available at that time.
Because UNIX was developed in the 1960s for full-floor computer systems with terminals and magnetic tapes, so there was no need to think about computers on the desk with a monitor:-)
Agree 100%
Nobody denies that there are these exceptional situations where there's no alternative software for Linux (yet).
But that doesn't make Linux an OS only for freaks and hobbyists
It's already in the name:
Linux is not Unix
What Julihan41 says is completely correct.
And Linus Thorvalds did not name it himself either, but eventually accepted this proposed name.
Linus developed the kernel at the time and this was married to wildebeest. That was when Linux was born in the 90s.
It is a unix-like operating system, but NOT UNIX. That would also be a problem because Unix is copyrighted.
Incidentally, a major reason why Linus had only started programming this kernel since he could not afford the expensive license from Unix.
