I'm going back to Windows. I've been using Linux for about one year and a half and I realized that I was spending more time configuring it instead of using it, and whenever I was done configuring, I would hop onto another distro and start everything again and again and again and again. I'm going to use it for a retrogaming machine with RetroPie, though. I will not be wasting my time this way. At first I thought you were just exaggerating and being overly harsh, but you were just telling the truth. To be honest, I never had a problem with Windows, I just wanted to try something different. I wish Linux was a more mainstream option, but it just is not. This is sad. It has a lot of potential and has always been almost there, but the distance between almost there and being there is enormous. The problem is that I like GNOME's workflow so much that I don't know if I would be able to replicate it on Windows. For me, it is perfect. I like Linux and I wish it was better. Maybe in the future...
I don't understand people distro hopping. I understand it when you're a beginner. Or trying a new one every now and then. But not settling to one tells me that the person didn't understood how to customize it. Or cannot stop themselves trying new stuff or trying out of the box solutions instead of customizing directly. Or simply leave the system as is, with its imperfections, as long as it generally works without hassle.
@@christiangonzalez6945 Ironic to see these "arguments" on a bad Linux arguments video, lmao. Yes, blame the guy for not finding a distro that works for him. He should have had his own personal "project" instead. Who cares about actually working on your computer when you could mess around with setting up your personal OS forever, right?
I use Linux on the desktop because I prefer it. No other reason. I watch TH-cam and Netflix on it I could do that an a tablet if I wanted I just prefer Linux.
I was just getting ready to post exactly that! Kent, I was with you up until the end when you said hipster or anti-business. There may be millions like that, but I'm not one of them. The top three things I like about Linux, you didn't mention. (1) I decide when to update or upgrade or patch the OS, (2) I am free to choose a distro that doesn't collect telemetry, and to research different OSs to my satisfaction regarding telemetry, and (3) there are hundreds of distros available, in a similar framework but which vary, in my opinion an interesting and free (as in speech) marketplace. I've been using Windows since 3.0 and Linux since GNOME 1. These are my reasons only. I'm not a Linux evangelist. Thank you for posting this video! I got a chuckle that there are seriously people encouraging others to use Linux for a daily driver because it's used on servers or refrigerators.
@SecularSkeptic the reason I wanted to move to Linux was to have more privacy since windows is spying on you more but I know the majority of people don't care about that and I'm not bothered by it I'll just use it and enjoy it myself, so windows isn't bad but the invasion of privacy is.
@@LinuxAficionadowindows is garbage. It spies on you, the interface is getting worse, it's full of bugs now, fixing anything requires tons of weird steps. Then there's Apple where you're stuck paying through the nose for stuff that should be cheap all so that it can be "easy?" I don't even know where you're finding "mean Linux people" anymore. Are you talking about Reddit? Reddit is a cesspool of karma chasers. Stop using it.
I've never actually felt the need to evangelize Linux to anyone. I'm glad I have _just enough_ grey-matter to be able to use it, and actually grow in knowledge of basic computer science along the way. My needs are rather simple, compared to the vast majority. I'm just not willing to pay-out-the-ass for the "convenience" of products like Apple. I'd feel like a sucker, so I also enjoy the fact that I have one-less Corporate Cock to contend with, trying to rape my wallet while trapped in a walled garden. That, for me, is the "freedom" aspect, while also being able to use older hardware that otherwise would just end up in a landfill. I'd love to be able to purge my old iPhone 5c and convert it into a simple music player with Linux, but that's several orders of magnitude above my pay-grade.
Yep this seems very sane. Personally my best argument for it would that in recent years it became the more "exciting" and cutting edge Platform for certain types of Deskop Software especially in the KDE Camp. Like KDE Plasma for example - once you get the hang of it, it runs circles around the "Desktop" on Mac or Windows. My biggest point against it which isn't nearly as commonly addressed as I it should is the brutal fragmentation wihtin of a already tiny userbase compard to other options. If you Google "How do i do X in Linux" 95% of times the answer is either not correct for your distro or version of distro.
Well, moved to linux a week ago because of Elden Ring's last update... literally had to disable/delete win11's core features I didn't even know existed before, just to stop the in-game stutters, to windows bring them back with a mandatory "fix" update... them I ended up breaking it... twice(I miss win7)...Running fine in Nobara Linux(nvidia version) so far, didn't have to change anything yet...
I think I recently posted a question on reddit about what are some really nice/useful features of desktop linux over windows. Like what can desktop linux do that windows can't/doesn't do as well in a practical standpoint. Not nebulous stuff like being free or more "secure" etc, etc. But actual usability QoL features. I really didn't get many answers, and even then some of them ignored the part about wanting /actual/ functional features and gave the party line about security/privacy/etc. About the only actual feature mentioned that I thought was actually a little neat was being able to select text and paste it with middle-click in another window without copying it to the clipboard. I don't know if most of the people with good answers just didn't notice the post or what, but I didn't get many responses.
Argument: Windows isn't customisable. True answer: 99% of pc users don't give a damn. Argument: You can't turn options off in Windows and it stays off. True answer: 99% of PC users don't give a damn. QoL features are basically no different to Windows or Mac. Unless you count being able to theme your desktop to look like Windows and Mac because moving to Linux means avoiding Windows and Mac, the desktop experience is mostly the same (no ads and no forced updates are the only benefits). From a Linux user. :)
I've written this before on another video about Linux and Linux users. Because the software is free and "gratis", this offers opportunities for people who patch up an old computer to still be able to participate in the digital world. And yes, even here in the wealthy Netherlands there are people who depend on computers, given or for little money, on which Windows simply cannot run acceptably anymore. Besides, these systems can still be used perfectly well for education, research and processing this in reports. Nowadays, of course, there are also Chromebooks and a lot can be done with those too, for relatively little money. I am talking about the people who can afford the cheapest internet subscription for their kids and then it stops. I am not talking about other parts of the world where inequality of opportunity is even greater and where opening up the digital world offers the possibility of emancipation. That can be the added value of Linux. By the way I never try to convince anyone, I use every OS interchangeably. But I do see value of Linux and free and open source software.
@@UltimatePerfection More Linux distros should be like ChromeOS. I've used it for a while and it is nuts how well made it is. Super easy to install, super easy to use, play store integrated and the UI/UX looks like it was made for normal humans to use.
People in the comments are missing the point. It's not bashing or judging Linux. This Video is about why these Arguments aren't good Arguments to convince someone to try Linux. It's not about disproving your belief or why you shouldn't use Linux.
people read and hear what they want, when they are blinded by a fandom to much. It's a perfect example of people being blind followers and not willing to hear other people out :O So welcome to the internet, where is has never been easier for dumb people to find other dumb people and make a movement lmao.
Finally someone I totally agree on the Linux topic. You have said exactly what I think about it. Absolutely spot on! I tried linux somehwere in the end of 1999 since then I install a new distro now and then to check how its going. Never stayed on Linux for exactly the resons you have mentioned.
I have an issue with all the "argument for using Linux" stuff, mainly because it presupposes that a person needs an argument for using it. I use Linux because I like it. It's a personal preference. I have the same issue with arguments for using Windows. Most Windows users use Windows because that's what came with the computer and have no need to switch. But, in both cases when you mention an OS then people jump on telling you to stop using it...that's just dumb...unless it's Kali. Stop using Kali as a desktop OS. I posted a question in a forum asking if anyone knew how the Linux compatibility of a specific Lenovo ARM computer was. Tons of people jumped in to tell me to "wait 5 years for Linux to catch up", as though Windows isn't the system catching up with ARM compatibility right now. But, even worse were the ones telling me to stop pushing my OS on everyone else. But, all I did was ask a question of the manufacturer in an appropriate forum. I've seen it go the other way, too, but frankly not nearly as often. Anyway, good video, Kent. Have a great day. Don't use Kali as a desktop OS.
I use #Linux on the desktop because i couldn't keep up with #Windows technical specs. Windows 10 end-of-life support is around the corner and Windows 11 has extremely high minimal requirements my current pc simply doesn't meet, and refraining from updating after end-of-life support feels like a cyber-security risk bold enough to take. Brand new machines are very expensive, i have no money to buy new and makes no sense for me to do so if my current machine is still working fine despite not being cutting-edge. Linux is free, works just fine for me despite its caveats, and I feel comfortable in it; but most of all, Linux welcomed me while #Microsoft excluded me and many others for simply not having the money to keep up with their $h1t.
The freedom argument is bollocks. I use Chrome and propriety software and get told I can't/shouldn't do that on Linux because it's not FOSS. So much for freedom. Freedom on someone's terms is not freedom.
Although I love Linux and I have no reason to run anything else at this point, and I know my way around the command line, you make so many valid points and this video is hilarious 😅. People talk about how toxic the Linux community is...I didnt learn Linux to join a community. People need to remember that always when they start with Linux. Just use what you need at the end of the day.
I still use Linux. I'm a retrogamer and I watch lots of things on TH-cam, various streaming sites, etc... This OS does the job just fine on my end. Only a handful of game within my library does not run, And, in the vast majority of cases, those that don't also struggles on Windows.
@BernardoHenriquez it's not GNU/Linux. Then we really have to call it GNU/GONE/SYSTEMD/Linux if you use Gnome lol Just call it linux. and stop being RMS's little slave ;)
@Dust-cx8ge I have an example: For the Glory, an Europa Universalis 2 spinoff, didn't worked at all for me (Steam Version) on Win10. Did try at one moment to make it work, like actually checking the logs and things like that, but didn't managed to make any progress. On Linux, it worked on the first try. And I've heard that's not unusual for some older games, especially early 2000s games. Weird enough, '90s game work better.
Had to agree completely on video. There are a lot of bad arguments. There are also very good arguments: 1. Stable OS options All those consumer oriented operating systems are not really stable. Debian and Red Hat Enterprise however (and as far as I know Suse) is very stable. Windows ENTERPRISE is also stable. That is interesting if there is something complex build top of platform so you don't want version upgrade to mess it. 2. Decrappification You can choose tool, not some data collecting advertising platform for services that you are not interested. 3. Open source Open source has one hugely important feature what is dismissed everyone who really doesn't have perspective how things works. Open source software allows cumulative learning. What I mean that, since I first time used GCC in 90s and loved it, and saw some tool (that I don't remember anymore) killed by company, I realized open source software would not die as long as it has users. So, I can use tool and master it, move to other version or newer version when *I* want. That doesn't works same way on proprietary software. Company can go bankrupt, it can be bought by other company, software I use got killed and developers moved to other tasks, or company may got some dumb idea to mess things up and force upgrade newer. All this kind of non-sense happens all the time on proprietary software that forces software user to relearn basics. I'm not any FSF evangelist and I don't have problem to use proprietary software. I just prefer open source software where it fits to take advantage of cumulative learning. There is one case where open source is crucial: Lower level developer tools and libraries. Every startup software company build their new product using open source tools and that is obvious that if idea is to make money using technology, you don't want to pay royalties using someone else technology. Chosen technology stack also affect directly to company value when considering exit or want some investor money. 4. Excellent on in own areas Software developers, maintaining cloud servers, data analytics, scientific work, security professionals... 5. Used in mostly off-the-grid Consumer oriented technology are today very much tied to cloud services. Some people actually spend their time on places where is bad connection like ships, McMurdo station, some hut or rural area long way from civilization. Setting up off-the-grid system like satellite mail server, proxy, hosting own repository with all software and manuals and on-premise installation of software. That wasn't surprise why ISS went to Debian when they got limited connection. They just bring up tech to space instead of downloading apps and reading online manuals.
I agree on every point and I'll add this: Yes Linux requires more of you, but that's not a negative thing. It teaches you about how this machine in front of you works. Over time this attention to detail leads to a fuller understanding of computers. Its also not bloated with shit that wants to surveil you and sell you things. Here's my hot take: I think a lot of this criticism would be squashed if gaming on Linux was more streamlined. Who could possibly use KDE Plasma in Endeavour OS or even pure Arch(with caveats) and be mystified by the desktop environment? This criticism I think mostly stems from the lack of gaming support for Linux based systems, which is now becoming better and better every day. Windows runs slower than it should, runs games shittier actually(you lose 10 frames on average, thats a fact backed up by many benchmarks), installing software is easier, programming(for me) is easier etc. I really think the Linux hate comes from a lack of exposure, a short attention span, but for sure it has much to do with how difficult gaming has traditionally been on Linux.
@Dust-cx8ge yeah I hear you. It's a trade off. I like Arch for this reason. I was tired of distros that had prebaked drivers and software and kernels etc. Nvidia proprietary drivers don't work for me, the dkms ones do, dracut gives my hardware grief initcpio doesn't. Grub fucks me over systemd works. Wayland is a huge fuckin problem still with nvidia drivers, but X11 works great with my rtx 3080. Everything seems to be like that, so starting with bare bones and piecing everything together from scratch seems to be the way to go for me. And after you've done a few system setups it doesn't take long to get a fresh install going well and it's easier to troubleshoot. I agree with your takes for sure though
The games running better on Linux is still more an exception than the norm. In the vast majority of cases games on Windows run better or the same. Though once Wayland is no longer missing functionality and it's more broadly adopted and has less bugs, we might see Linux start to be more consitently ahead. At least on CPU-demanding (parts of the) games. Since that's where Linux is better. Strictly on GPU, Linux is not faster, unless the drivers are better, and that was never the case.
@@Winnetou17 That seems to be not true. There a plenty of benchmarks out there comparing how Linux handles games vs. Windows and its across the board better performance. It is for me for sure, 10 fps +. But again, this is because of the highly configurable and optimizable nature of Linux, particularly Arch. But that's a double-edged sword and can lead to plenty of headaches and screw ups if you're not careful. For most people, its not worth the headache switching to Linux for gaming, but for me it is. I take the headache so I don't have to fuckin use Windows ever again. I'm FREE!
@Dust-cx8ge That good , If you can tolerate Microsoft none sense. I generally agree that not everyone should use Linux if they simlpy do not want to use it for whatever the reason. Linux will always be a revolving door because its a chicken before the egg problem for Linux. Linux needs more Software to get user but users need Linux to have more software before they will use Linux. I am fine if things stay as they are because Linux is good enough for most use cases these days. Overall, most Linux users wait till Microsoft piss its users off and then they try to convert the users. Honestly, if Microsoft stop with the insane privacy policies most Linux users today would still be using windows.
I use Linux, because: 1. I got used to Ubuntu (from 2008) and Virtualbox (from 2009). 2. I love OpenZFS (started from 2018 with ZOL)!! 3. Software is free like in free beer and I can use cheap HW, see the summary from 2008 to 2029. My cheap desktop hardware: - 2008-2014 Pentium 4 HT (3.0GHz); 1.5 GB DDR; 500GB HDD (HP d520 SFF from 2002) - 2014-2019 Phenom II X4 B97 (9.4x Pentium; 3.2GHz); 8GB DDR3; 128GB SSD; 500GB and 1TB HDD (HP dc5850 from 2008). - 2019-2024 Ryzen 3 2200G (2.4x Phenom II; 3.7GHz); 16GB DDR4. 512GB nvme; 2TB HDD with reused 128GB SSD as cache (L2ARC). Own $349 Build. - soon Ryzen 5 5600G (3x 2200G) and 32GB DDR4 for another 5 years :) The 500GB HDD from the Pentium and the refurbished 1TB HDD from the Phenom both died end 2023 with ~10 power-on years :( :) :) The disks were blocked by ZFS, because of ZFS-CRC errors on recent data, but OpenZFS could still read the last weekly snapshot :)
It's really just another tool. I use Linux mainly because like you say I can get most of my shit done that I want on it. One of the dudes in my band uses a Mac for mixing music and for the Live shows. I wouldn't use Linux for that use case as it's not robust or "stable" enough to do that. I'll write demos on Linux. But not record music. Windows is for that. Because that's where the software lives. Yabridge can't emulate everything.
Main reason to use desktop linux is freedom. This is also the main problem for desktop linux adaptation. There is a small % of people who want to spend hours reading a wiki, theres a small % who understand the KISS principle. I think the main market for desktop linux today are gamers, they are used to fucking around with config files etc They are ready to learn new things to get that 30fps+ performance boost :)
It's so funny i switched to linux 2 years ago, and i love it however you're my favorite linux'sh youtuber lol, i wanted to get away from windows for my own reasons, but the religious "like" side of the linux community seems like its biggest problem, its awesome and come so far since i try'd it over 20 years ago when i was 15, but end of the day people will use what works for them and should not be shamed for it, I love being able to do everything i want in linux and have that control that "I" want, for someone who does not want to put in the time to learn and make things work, linux is not an option. Great video i love your rants lol
I've been running Linux on my PC for six years and ditched Minecraft for Minetest a couple years ago because dealing with Microsoft BS was just too freaking annoying and I certainly didn't want to get bogged down and ripped off with the Apple proprietary ecosystem. ^.-
Got this recommended to me and I instantly thought oh fuck another Linux nut.. not again. But I was pleasantly surprised when it turned out you're one of the rare sane ones. My few thoughts on this video: -Linux still feels bad. I haven't used it in quite a long time, but I guarantee that it's still as janky as it always was. And people don't like that. Windows XP felt better than modern Linux. And MacOS is arguably even better than Windows. This is probably the worst thing for me, and why I won't ever use Linux as a main OS. -I don't like the linux file system and the 'everything is a file'' idea. sure, it's probably just what I'm used to, but still, it seems like a complete downgrade from the windows FS -the fragmentation of the billions of distros doesn't help at all. And gnu is this but the kernel is that, but the window manager is this but the wayland wine proton is that. people don't want to think about any of that, especially the normies. -on the topic of freedom, open source, and tinkering with the system - first as you said nobody cares. second, I like tinkering, I like poking stuff and seeing how it works, and I still prefer windows. yes some things are a bit locked down, but it's still relatively accessible, just not in the normal way. people have "hacked" and patched windows in many different ways. -even for development I like windows better. We were "forced" to use CentOS for one course in college and for me it was just a pain, even though I understood it. Mate I just want to install the full fat Visual Studio, write my code and click the (run) "Local Machine" button. EZ PZ lemon squeezy. I mean I'm writing windows executables anyways. -one of the "newest" arguments lately spurred by the windows recall "drama" is that of privacy. oh bill gates is spying on you from your webcam 24/7 and he's sending it to the NSA and Obama. yea yea whatever. While I don't blindly trust Microsoft or any other giant corporation, I do think that they can't actually be too shady. There's people checking on them all the time, and I doubt they'd throw away billions because of fines just for some stupid data of yours. Most of what they do is plain old telemetry aka usage patterns, and I'm completely fine with that. -and lastly, I don't actually hate Linux. I love alternative OSes. I was one of the few people running Symbian OS, and later Windows Phone. I was interested in MeeGo and later SailfishOS, as alternatives to Android. I've installed Linux a couple of times in my life on my own volition. I've Installed Backtrack back in my younger days when we all wanted to become hackers, and then later Kali when they renamed it. I've tried Ubuntu multiple times as well and tried to make it work. But it's just not there yet. So I don't hate Linux, I just hate the annoying neckbeards that pop out of nowhere anytime Windows is mentioned. Like cockroaches.
for the windows privacy thing, we get this every new version of windows. a bunch of youtubers come along and proclaim the horror of it and they are switching to linux. some months go by, the features go in and the world moves on, still using windows and the frantic nay-sayers have to wait for the next version of windows to proclaim they are switching to linux again.
So while you're at bad arguments, let me try and make some good arguments as of why Linux on the Desktop is worth it: 1) Ease of use and better fool proofed design. (See immutable distros for example with flatpaks or snaps for user apps) 2) It is easier to figure out what's wrong if something doesn't work on Linux as the errors logs are more comprehensive than the Event Log of Windows with random cryptic hexadecimal error codes. 3) Driver installation: Mostly not required on Linux which speeds up the process of setting up a new computer. 4) IF the user want's to configure something on their system which they form time to time also do on Windows, it is easier on Linux because there is a better file system layout to actually find and edit certain things. If there is not a UI for it. As the mostly is on Desktop Linux systems. On Windows ... yeah go to the registry to just move your taskbar to a different location in Windows 11 5) Lower recourse usage, as mentioned by you. Just look at the amount of electrical waste just Windows 11 causes for hardware not even than old. I mean we're not talking about 32bit CPU systems with 1GB RAM here. But stuff like first Gen Ryzen CPUs. Windows is very bad for the environment and it becomes an existential issue for all of us if too many people are running that OS. 6) Privacy is a big concern. Maybe not for the average pleb but it should. 7) The whole let's put AI in everything is also a concerning trend not just for Windows. Yeah let's invent an AI which takes screenshots every seconds and analyze them "locally" on the users machine. Just to cause even more system load, energy consumption and drive the planet to the graveyard! As if Windows hadn't enough performance issues with all the services, telemetry, anti virus already and now ... AI stuff atop of it!? 8) Security is actually a valid point. Yes you can fuck up Linux as well. But it is way harder. Not because there is less malware for it. In fact there is a ton of it. Yes in the end the user is the most fragile part in the security chain. But if we talk about security on the Desktop it is not to be the most secure. It is to be the least vulnerable one. I mean as a shady actor who would you go for? The low hanging fruits apparently. Ans these are the PCs running a data collecting operating system. Because it is easier to just get what has already been gracefully collected and even organized than to do this all by yourself. I mean as a malware developer I would not care about the individual. I just need a fall guy. Either to get some money or to just lay false tracks. and it is a proven fact that Windows is the least secure system by design. Plus it has a ton of idiotic users running it. But because they simply don't know it better. In the end all we can do is to make them aware of alternatives and maybe think of doing the switch just for their own sake. To sum up my main arguments: Windows is an existential issue to all of us looking just at the amount of waste and additional power consumption it causes. I even would go this far and would require Microsoft to be liable for the damage they cause to the environment just because of their very bad business practices and software design. Yes some might argue, but the top 500 super computer cause way more damage due to their raw power consumption. While yes but actually no. 500 super computer vs 5 billion devices running Windows. I think we all can agree that the 500 is not the main problem here. But Windows on ARM! Yes but again. Swapping all the x86 PC with more power friendly ARM systems will still cause a massive amount of electrical waste. Anyway. I personally use Linux on the Desktop because it is way easier and time saving than maintaining Windows. Actually I do not even need to touch my OS at all. I installed it once and never touched it since then. It updates all on it's own in a none disruptive way and just keeps on rolling and in case of an unexpected boot errors it even self repairs within in a few seconds because it just rollsback to a previous snapshot. It will then just take like 20 seconds to boot instead of 15. All my software comes from flathub or by using a distrobox container and never required me to modify my main system at all. Not even enter a root password. Because all the apps are installed just for my user and no changes to the operating system needed to be made. Something mere impossible on Windows. So actually I run Linux out of laziness an less because of ideological reasons. - Posted from a 11 years old Windows 11 unsupported Laptop running up-to-date software and being still shockingly fast in 2024.
It's Stupid Easy These Days. Was given a Dual Boot 386 in 1996 as a birthday gift from my uncle who upgraded. Win3.1 & Slacware... whatever it was in '96 LOL with almost NO Documentation. 2k3 I Had P2's & P3's at my first IT Job, I had a CompUSA Work Account, My first Purchases were RedHat9.0 & SuSE 90 Boxed Copes with 10 CDs & 4/5 DVDs in the Box LOL
@@KentsTechWorld And for $59.00-ish Bucks Meanwhile M$ is $100+, and at the time Xp wasnt even SP2, so We would Downgrade Everything at work to Win2k SP4 lol
Most of my time at my computer is spent toying around with C++ or using a browser and Arch works great for those purposes, so it's what I use, but I have never recommended it to anyone else. My friends need to work with MS Office or relax playing some games as easily as possible and that's not what Linux is designed for, nor will it ever be. Trying to push it on absolutely everyone and outright lying about what it can do well will only hurt everyone's perception of both the software and community surrounding it. It's too bad the Stallman cultists are too deep in their own little world to realize or even care about what normal people want out of their PC.
I agree with you Kent. People these days want a service so they are willing to pay for a service. Here in Florida it is very hot and people take their car for a complete car wash instead of them cleaning the car. Its the service and the price that people willing to pay. OpenWRT is very good for me to use on my router because I know how to get what I want but for most people they like plug and play. Open source is used by people that know how to get things done and someone that is into the market. Most people that I know do WIFI instead of cable. It looks better they say but WIFI has limitations.
majority of windows users who would be convinced to run linux would probably be convinced by free stable unbreakable and easy to fix if breaks with no special knowledge windows like familiar design interface and workflow double click program installers and stand alone programs (either containerized or runing on bare metal without user being asked too many things to do) including wine configured by default to just work basically a chromebook but with actual admin powers i mean packet mannagers are cool but many windows users would be feeling safer if they could just download any deb or rpm package double click on it and just click next to install windows user account elevating privliges scheme like uac no constant password asking if they already logged in you should be able to just click yes /no to elevate privliges because most of user experience is basrd on familiarity and common sense, terminal is as good as using free dos , nobody would run windows from a shell prompt, you could but nobody would like to do it and "running linux" the arch linux community way of describing it is the ting most computer users avoid or simply don't even think about
Because i disagree. The next user will disagree and the next will disagree etc... Everybody has their own Linux distribution preference. You might reasonably argue that is a problem, but streamlining the distributions would cause other problems. What about XFCE? Cinnamon? KDE Plasma? Mate? etc? Ban them? There have been many attempts to unify Linux in various means such as using package managers, Flatpak etc. But ultimately, supporting Linux from a corporate stand point is always going to require more support than other operating systems outside of the server space... I think we as Linux users should finally accept this...
Not good, cuz if it happens, your are not going to like or use it, linux is good the way it is, pick the version you like and i use, if you don't like what you see, create you own env, if you cant cuz if too complicate for you, stay in windows and be happy
Just got my hands on an Lenovo Thinkcentre M700 i5 and a KVM beside my Win 11 gaming pc. Planning on installing Fedora 40 KDE on that Lenovo... also have an older laptop with Fedora KDE. Greetings from Høje Taastrup. :)
I daily drive Linux because I just simply don't like windows. I offer to help people interested in switching but if they're happy on windows then why bug them? I honestly don't understand the pushy people. Worse than religious zealots at times....
Linus Torvalds himself once said that he startet Linux as a Desktop Operating System. I heard in a few Videos you saying Linux is not meant to be a Desktop OS. Thats simply not true. Search on TH-cam this: "Q&A session with Linus Torvalds: Why is Linux not competitive on desktop" I would rather believe the inventor of Linux. i think he himself knows best how linux was meant to be .. .don't you think?
nope. He wanted a unix workstation for dev work, and he was interested in the new 486 chip. But could not buy a sun system like the one once he used a uni, so he made linux. Tist out of his own mouth from interviews from the 90's and on. He was not interested in a "Desktop"! He did not even think anyone would care, and like i said when people did care he started to want more out of it. And I soon have almost all Linus videos there all the way back to reading articles in the 90's. Like I keep telling people. i been researching this for close to 30 years now. The video you talk about is his take on why linux is not winning the desktop. Btw he also thinks there is too much fragmentation in the desktop market for linux! the two videos talk about why he made it and why it is open, I can't seem to find the one about him wanting a workstation. But they are out there, just relly old :O th-cam.com/video/fg_XzyVyhDU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/actgZVvs_Jk/w-d-xo.html
i used to watch all of his videos, but he kinda don't get it any more :O It feels like he stopped caring, and just say things for the sake if trying to pamper to the tribe. He could have changed, i have not watched him in a few years.
Also, the reason Linux is used on web servers isn't necessarily because it is better. I would argue it is used primarily because it is free and good enough to do the job.
Actually it was better. There was respectable security tests in 90s using automated stress testing and Linux and GNU software did perform better than other unix systems. Reason was likely that they didn't have so much legacy to worry and GNU folks make decision to aim directly to 32-bit systems while other unixes had 16-bit roots. And back in 90s and early 00s, it was really much easier to setup Apache HTTP server using terminal than setting up IIS to Windows with mouse. Major reason was that Apache HTTP configuration files have documentation written in comments and they can be commented when something is changed, and configuration files where easy to handle. But instead in Windows, there was small sized dialog, and it has that "Microsoft feature" lack of resize, settings go somewhere hard to find place... so it was garbage. That wasn't surprise that Apache + PHP top of Linux get hugely popular on web site hosting, eCommerce and CMS market instead of IIS + ASP. And what also happened is that web technology become standard way to make user interface. So it is not just some company landing page or eCommerce. Business applications are mostly written top of Linux.
I had three reasons why I switched to Linux, and I believe they're good arguments as well 1. unmatched privacy because windows is full of spyware you can't disable easily 2. GNOME UI philosophy is amazing and you can't get anything GNOME-like on Windows, and with MacOS it's a lot of work 3. whereas normal linux distros are not necessarily more stable, NixOS is since it has built-in redundant configuration management. If you change something and you fuck it up, you can revert back to the previous one and everything is still working perfectly. Then you can unfuck your fuck-up and continue working like normal. This makes it very hard to brick your system which is something amazing imo
Kent, I say this as someone who has recently gotten into linux and stumbled upon your videos because of the youtube algorithm, this is probably the first one I watch where it doesn't seem like you hate linux despite being a video about bad arguments for it
To some extent I understand where you are coming from. However open source code being more secure doesn't mean that everyone needs to read through it. Just like we saw this year with the xz backdoor, it only takes one dev to find a problem. And the more access developers have to source code the faster these issues are found. The point has never been to audit all code on your system. It is simply allowing more developer's eyes on the code
secure code is all about the dev not the ability to read it or have access to it. like i said mot other dev's don't look at others code, that fact have been proven. And people in close source audit and check others code all the time, it's part of the QA part of dev work. Some dev companies have whole teams doing nothing that that :O Also there is not proven fact that open source find or fix problems faster, People have researched this for over 30 years now, and again it all comes down to how good are the OG dev team, and how well do they test their programs. And the out side people that find's 99% of the problems are other companies that get paid to do it or it's there job. Other dev's only look at others code if they really, really, really have to. cos they don't get paid to fix others mistakes ;)
@@KentsTechWorld I think the argument is more so that just because most devs don't, it doesn't mean that no devs will. Yes how secure the original organization is able to make the software is by far the most important factor. However between open and closed source software only one gives the possibility for out of organization code inspection The way I see it, your dev team is essentially expanded from those who work for you, on the software. To also include some of those who work with your software Would you make the argument that closed source software is more secure? If so why?
"Just like we saw this year with the xz backdoor, it only takes one dev to find a problem": The problem did not come to light by a "dev" reading the source code.
@@CasinoWoyale You are right. If what you mean is it wasn't found by a developer opening up a repo for his favorite afternoon reading material, then yes! It was not found by reading through source code. The funny part is that it couldn't have been. The backdoor only existed by taking a page out of the closed source book. It existed as "test" binaries. Now lets look at two scenarios the developer who found this back door could have found himself in. 1) The code is open source: You as a user of the software notice ssh logins taking longer. You have the ability to report an issue to the main developers. You also have all the same tools and abilities as the developers of the software to do detective work. If you so choose, you have the ability to use these tools, like open source code and commit histories, to try to find the problem yourself. (This is what happened) 2) The code is not open source: You as a user of the software notice ssh logins taking longer. You have the ability to report an issue to the main developers. That's it. The problem with closed source is; no matter the priority of the problem for the user, or their ability to find the problem themselves. They are entirely dependent on the developers of the software to solve the issues
I generally agree with your assessments of these arguments. Here's my "good" arguments for switching to Linux: 1. Microsoft is already doing things in Windows that waste your time and make your experience worse in order to meet their business objectives, such as nagging you to switch to Edge and Bing, requiring a Microsoft account, enabling OneDrive by default, and so on. There's every reason to believe they will continue do more of this in each new version, and if you depend on Windows you will have no choice but to live with it as previous versions will not receive security updates. 2. Linux has in Flatpak a convenient and secure way to install new software and keep it up to date. The Windows equivalent is the Microsoft Store and it's not useful in the same way as it's missing most widely used software, by contrast many people can accomplish everything they do with their computer on Linux using only software from Flathub. 3. Linux has two great desktop ecosystems with Gnome and KDE that each have their own substantial differences from the way the Windows desktop works. You may find you prefer one or the other of them over the Windows way of doing things, as I did with Gnome.
so i can say from experience that Linux waste more user time than windows. I have seen people spending more time doing the same work on Linux more than not. Linux is great for tinkers, but that also mean you are spending more time setting it up to just work, if you not running a headless server. And most companies would lose money using it as a desktop, mostly for the lack of good alternatives for programs they use that is windows only. Just where i work, it would maek over 3 years of re writing tools, and workflows to be able to use Linux as a desktop. and we are small. and 99% of companies run like we do :O and MS has nothing to do with it, it's all about what programs that are great that work on it, and make people work faster. Most people don't use Windows for the sake of Windows, they use it for the tools, programs etc is host
@@KentsTechWorld of course if you're already locked into apps for a specific platform it doesn't make sense to switch, that's true for any platform. For people that are able to switch, perhaps due to using mostly web-based software, there are significant advantages to using Linux (or Mac) over Windows in not having to deal with Microsoft intentionally messing up your workflow to make more money off of you.
@@KentsTechWorld even tho your counter-argument makes total sense there, I haven't really heard such an argument in the first place. But I wasn't talking about this one anyway
'Linux' is not the OS.. OS distribution's using the Linux kernel is correct way to speak about it. Unless you start to teach the 'it works' masses how it actually works... They never going to adopt anything but what they are being feed by the corporate behemoth's. So teach/speak correctly about stuff and maybe the masses learn something in the process? That includes being specific about everything, every software component.
Acktually "Windows" is not the OS. Microsoft OS distributions post 2000 using the NT kernel or NT system architecture is the correct way to speak about it..(adjusts glasses)
you have to learn about social constructs and what it means for words. AKA you use the wording most people understand when you are talking to a broad group of people with massive different understanding and knowledge. So for most people Linux mean the distro, and even the one that knows it's only the kernel, will use the name Linux to talk about them using a Linux based distro. And this is not a teaching video, this is not a tech video. It's a a observation video, about how some Linux users have some bad arguments for running a Linux based OS. And you are one of them it seams
Yeah! I don't understand people who install Linux just to tell everyone about it. No. You're doing it for yourself. Don't let anyone judge you for whatever you're using. It's your PC.
it's honestly impressive how consistently awful your arguments are linux is a desktop os and many people and organizations are switching to it, you're just coping due to your 8GB of RAM you paid half a kidney for
The thing is you haven't actually refuted anything he said. Ad hominem isn't really an argument and 4% isn't "many". I don't agree with everything he says but you haven't said anything at all.
Thanks for proving my point. And you will be happy to know i am typing this from my 32GB Linux machine :P Also should i get a 4GB machine for ML and AI?? i need to train some networks for my work :O
You guys completely lost the reason of the existing of gnu/linux. Just use windows 11 with its AI copilot and system recall and be happy, be happy with your mandatory online account in windows 11, be happy when miscrosoft decide what to do with your computer without your permission, if windows is the right OS for you, just use windows and let gnu/linux and its users in peace, let them be happy too, if gnu/linux is not for you, don't use it.
missed the point did you lol. The video is not about who it's for, just that Linux users have bad arguments :D and i even at the end talk about some good arguments you all have. This is not a windows vs linux video at all. So maybe you did not watch it ;)
I'm going back to Windows. I've been using Linux for about one year and a half and I realized that I was spending more time configuring it instead of using it, and whenever I was done configuring, I would hop onto another distro and start everything again and again and again and again. I'm going to use it for a retrogaming machine with RetroPie, though. I will not be wasting my time this way.
At first I thought you were just exaggerating and being overly harsh, but you were just telling the truth. To be honest, I never had a problem with Windows, I just wanted to try something different. I wish Linux was a more mainstream option, but it just is not. This is sad. It has a lot of potential and has always been almost there, but the distance between almost there and being there is enormous.
The problem is that I like GNOME's workflow so much that I don't know if I would be able to replicate it on Windows. For me, it is perfect.
I like Linux and I wish it was better. Maybe in the future...
I don't understand people distro hopping. I understand it when you're a beginner. Or trying a new one every now and then. But not settling to one tells me that the person didn't understood how to customize it. Or cannot stop themselves trying new stuff or trying out of the box solutions instead of customizing directly. Or simply leave the system as is, with its imperfections, as long as it generally works without hassle.
So basically you could not stop distro hopping instead of doing your project.
@@Winnetou17
I got the same vibe.
Dude could not stop distro hoping, yet somehow his personal faults became the faults of the system.
@@christiangonzalez6945 Ironic to see these "arguments" on a bad Linux arguments video, lmao. Yes, blame the guy for not finding a distro that works for him. He should have had his own personal "project" instead. Who cares about actually working on your computer when you could mess around with setting up your personal OS forever, right?
I use Linux on the desktop because I prefer it. No other reason. I watch TH-cam and Netflix on it I could do that an a tablet if I wanted I just prefer Linux.
Same for me.
I was just getting ready to post exactly that! Kent, I was with you up until the end when you said hipster or anti-business. There may be millions like that, but I'm not one of them. The top three things I like about Linux, you didn't mention. (1) I decide when to update or upgrade or patch the OS, (2) I am free to choose a distro that doesn't collect telemetry, and to research different OSs to my satisfaction regarding telemetry, and (3) there are hundreds of distros available, in a similar framework but which vary, in my opinion an interesting and free (as in speech) marketplace. I've been using Windows since 3.0 and Linux since GNOME 1. These are my reasons only. I'm not a Linux evangelist. Thank you for posting this video! I got a chuckle that there are seriously people encouraging others to use Linux for a daily driver because it's used on servers or refrigerators.
Sadly you can't stream Netflix in 4K with Linux :(
@@MaisistkeinGemuese I don't have 4k, so no problem for me😉
@@MaisistkeinGemuese I mean I only pay for the 1080p version anyway
My main problem with Linux is that the community over promises and treats casual and non technical users like shit
How are plebes supposed to be treated?
Like microsft support or worse
@SecularSkeptic the reason I wanted to move to Linux was to have more privacy since windows is spying on you more but I know the majority of people don't care about that and I'm not bothered by it I'll just use it and enjoy it myself, so windows isn't bad but the invasion of privacy is.
@@Origin_unkn0wn 🙃
@@LinuxAficionadowindows is garbage. It spies on you, the interface is getting worse, it's full of bugs now, fixing anything requires tons of weird steps. Then there's Apple where you're stuck paying through the nose for stuff that should be cheap all so that it can be "easy?"
I don't even know where you're finding "mean Linux people" anymore. Are you talking about Reddit? Reddit is a cesspool of karma chasers. Stop using it.
I've never actually felt the need to evangelize Linux to anyone. I'm glad I have _just enough_ grey-matter to be able to use it, and actually grow in knowledge of basic computer science along the way. My needs are rather simple, compared to the vast majority. I'm just not willing to pay-out-the-ass for the "convenience" of products like Apple. I'd feel like a sucker, so I also enjoy the fact that I have one-less Corporate Cock to contend with, trying to rape my wallet while trapped in a walled garden. That, for me, is the "freedom" aspect, while also being able to use older hardware that otherwise would just end up in a landfill. I'd love to be able to purge my old iPhone 5c and convert it into a simple music player with Linux, but that's several orders of magnitude above my pay-grade.
Just get an android phone if you dont like it. No point of holding on to apple products if you dont want to take advantage of the Apple eco system.
Yep this seems very sane. Personally my best argument for it would that in recent years it became the more "exciting" and cutting edge Platform for certain types of Deskop Software especially in the KDE Camp. Like KDE Plasma for example - once you get the hang of it, it runs circles around the "Desktop" on Mac or Windows. My biggest point against it which isn't nearly as commonly addressed as I it should is the brutal fragmentation wihtin of a already tiny userbase compard to other options. If you Google "How do i do X in Linux" 95% of times the answer is either not correct for your distro or version of distro.
Well, moved to linux a week ago because of Elden Ring's last update... literally had to disable/delete win11's core features I didn't even know existed before, just to stop the in-game stutters, to windows bring them back with a mandatory "fix" update... them I ended up breaking it... twice(I miss win7)...Running fine in Nobara Linux(nvidia version) so far, didn't have to change anything yet...
I think I recently posted a question on reddit about what are some really nice/useful features of desktop linux over windows. Like what can desktop linux do that windows can't/doesn't do as well in a practical standpoint. Not nebulous stuff like being free or more "secure" etc, etc. But actual usability QoL features. I really didn't get many answers, and even then some of them ignored the part about wanting /actual/ functional features and gave the party line about security/privacy/etc. About the only actual feature mentioned that I thought was actually a little neat was being able to select text and paste it with middle-click in another window without copying it to the clipboard. I don't know if most of the people with good answers just didn't notice the post or what, but I didn't get many responses.
Argument: Windows isn't customisable. True answer: 99% of pc users don't give a damn. Argument: You can't turn options off in Windows and it stays off. True answer: 99% of PC users don't give a damn. QoL features are basically no different to Windows or Mac. Unless you count being able to theme your desktop to look like Windows and Mac because moving to Linux means avoiding Windows and Mac, the desktop experience is mostly the same (no ads and no forced updates are the only benefits). From a Linux user. :)
I've written this before on another video about Linux and Linux users. Because the software is free and "gratis", this offers opportunities for people who patch up an old computer to still be able to participate in the digital world. And yes, even here in the wealthy Netherlands there are people who depend on computers, given or for little money, on which Windows simply cannot run acceptably anymore. Besides, these systems can still be used perfectly well for education, research and processing this in reports. Nowadays, of course, there are also Chromebooks and a lot can be done with those too, for relatively little money. I am talking about the people who can afford the cheapest internet subscription for their kids and then it stops. I am not talking about other parts of the world where inequality of opportunity is even greater and where opening up the digital world offers the possibility of emancipation. That can be the added value of Linux. By the way I never try to convince anyone, I use every OS interchangeably. But I do see value of Linux and free and open source software.
Well, Chromebooks basically run Linux, so...
@@UltimatePerfection More Linux distros should be like ChromeOS. I've used it for a while and it is nuts how well made it is. Super easy to install, super easy to use, play store integrated and the UI/UX looks like it was made for normal humans to use.
Off topic... are those JBL headphones?
cheap sony one lol
Great video! Linux isn't for everybody. It has it's pros and cons.
People in the comments are missing the point. It's not bashing or judging Linux. This Video is about why these Arguments aren't good Arguments to convince someone to try Linux.
It's not about disproving your belief or why you shouldn't use Linux.
people read and hear what they want, when they are blinded by a fandom to much.
It's a perfect example of people being blind followers and not willing to hear other people out :O
So welcome to the internet, where is has never been easier for dumb people to find other dumb people and make a movement lmao.
Great video. I especially like the fact that you point out that no one really looks at the source code but developers.
Finally someone I totally agree on the Linux topic. You have said exactly what I think about it. Absolutely spot on! I tried linux somehwere in the end of 1999 since then I install a new distro now and then to check how its going. Never stayed on Linux for exactly the resons you have mentioned.
I have an issue with all the "argument for using Linux" stuff, mainly because it presupposes that a person needs an argument for using it. I use Linux because I like it. It's a personal preference.
I have the same issue with arguments for using Windows. Most Windows users use Windows because that's what came with the computer and have no need to switch.
But, in both cases when you mention an OS then people jump on telling you to stop using it...that's just dumb...unless it's Kali. Stop using Kali as a desktop OS.
I posted a question in a forum asking if anyone knew how the Linux compatibility of a specific Lenovo ARM computer was. Tons of people jumped in to tell me to "wait 5 years for Linux to catch up", as though Windows isn't the system catching up with ARM compatibility right now. But, even worse were the ones telling me to stop pushing my OS on everyone else. But, all I did was ask a question of the manufacturer in an appropriate forum.
I've seen it go the other way, too, but frankly not nearly as often.
Anyway, good video, Kent. Have a great day. Don't use Kali as a desktop OS.
I use #Linux on the desktop because i couldn't keep up with #Windows technical specs. Windows 10 end-of-life support is around the corner and Windows 11 has extremely high minimal requirements my current pc simply doesn't meet, and refraining from updating after end-of-life support feels like a cyber-security risk bold enough to take. Brand new machines are very expensive, i have no money to buy new and makes no sense for me to do so if my current machine is still working fine despite not being cutting-edge. Linux is free, works just fine for me despite its caveats, and I feel comfortable in it; but most of all, Linux welcomed me while #Microsoft excluded me and many others for simply not having the money to keep up with their $h1t.
The freedom argument is bollocks. I use Chrome and propriety software and get told I can't/shouldn't do that on Linux because it's not FOSS. So much for freedom. Freedom on someone's terms is not freedom.
linux is freedom to run windows in a vm
Although I love Linux and I have no reason to run anything else at this point, and I know my way around the command line, you make so many valid points and this video is hilarious 😅. People talk about how toxic the Linux community is...I didnt learn Linux to join a community. People need to remember that always when they start with Linux. Just use what you need at the end of the day.
I still use Linux. I'm a retrogamer and I watch lots of things on TH-cam, various streaming sites, etc... This OS does the job just fine on my end. Only a handful of game within my library does not run, And, in the vast majority of cases, those that don't also struggles on Windows.
@Dust-cx8ge Different strokes for different folks.
I too use gnu/linux in all my devices for my daily tasks, work, multimedia and gaming, i don't use any microsoft products since 2001.
I am thinking of getting a old laptop to do a Linux based retro gaming system on.
Could be fun to have a somewhat portable and cheap retro system
@BernardoHenriquez it's not GNU/Linux.
Then we really have to call it GNU/GONE/SYSTEMD/Linux if you use Gnome lol
Just call it linux. and stop being RMS's little slave ;)
@Dust-cx8ge I have an example: For the Glory, an Europa Universalis 2 spinoff, didn't worked at all for me (Steam Version) on Win10. Did try at one moment to make it work, like actually checking the logs and things like that, but didn't managed to make any progress. On Linux, it worked on the first try. And I've heard that's not unusual for some older games, especially early 2000s games. Weird enough, '90s game work better.
Had to agree completely on video. There are a lot of bad arguments.
There are also very good arguments:
1. Stable OS options
All those consumer oriented operating systems are not really stable.
Debian and Red Hat Enterprise however (and as far as I know Suse) is very stable. Windows ENTERPRISE is also stable.
That is interesting if there is something complex build top of platform so you don't want version upgrade to mess it.
2. Decrappification
You can choose tool, not some data collecting advertising platform for services that you are not interested.
3. Open source
Open source has one hugely important feature what is dismissed everyone who really doesn't have perspective how things works. Open source software allows cumulative learning.
What I mean that, since I first time used GCC in 90s and loved it, and saw some tool (that I don't remember anymore) killed by company, I realized open source software would not die as long as it has users.
So, I can use tool and master it, move to other version or newer version when *I* want. That doesn't works same way on proprietary software. Company can go bankrupt, it can be bought by other company, software I use got killed and developers moved to other tasks, or company may got some dumb idea to mess things up and force upgrade newer. All this kind of non-sense happens all the time on proprietary software that forces software user to relearn basics.
I'm not any FSF evangelist and I don't have problem to use proprietary software. I just prefer open source software where it fits to take advantage of cumulative learning.
There is one case where open source is crucial: Lower level developer tools and libraries. Every startup software company build their new product using open source tools and that is obvious that if idea is to make money using technology, you don't want to pay royalties using someone else technology. Chosen technology stack also affect directly to company value when considering exit or want some investor money.
4. Excellent on in own areas
Software developers, maintaining cloud servers, data analytics, scientific work, security professionals...
5. Used in mostly off-the-grid
Consumer oriented technology are today very much tied to cloud services. Some people actually spend their time on places where is bad connection like ships, McMurdo station, some hut or rural area long way from civilization. Setting up off-the-grid system like satellite mail server, proxy, hosting own repository with all software and manuals and on-premise installation of software. That wasn't surprise why ISS went to Debian when they got limited connection. They just bring up tech to space instead of downloading apps and reading online manuals.
you clearly only heard what you wanted and not what was being said
I agree on every point and I'll add this: Yes Linux requires more of you, but that's not a negative thing. It teaches you about how this machine in front of you works. Over time this attention to detail leads to a fuller understanding of computers. Its also not bloated with shit that wants to surveil you and sell you things. Here's my hot take: I think a lot of this criticism would be squashed if gaming on Linux was more streamlined. Who could possibly use KDE Plasma in Endeavour OS or even pure Arch(with caveats) and be mystified by the desktop environment? This criticism I think mostly stems from the lack of gaming support for Linux based systems, which is now becoming better and better every day. Windows runs slower than it should, runs games shittier actually(you lose 10 frames on average, thats a fact backed up by many benchmarks), installing software is easier, programming(for me) is easier etc. I really think the Linux hate comes from a lack of exposure, a short attention span, but for sure it has much to do with how difficult gaming has traditionally been on Linux.
@Dust-cx8ge yeah I hear you. It's a trade off. I like Arch for this reason. I was tired of distros that had prebaked drivers and software and kernels etc. Nvidia proprietary drivers don't work for me, the dkms ones do, dracut gives my hardware grief initcpio doesn't. Grub fucks me over systemd works. Wayland is a huge fuckin problem still with nvidia drivers, but X11 works great with my rtx 3080. Everything seems to be like that, so starting with bare bones and piecing everything together from scratch seems to be the way to go for me. And after you've done a few system setups it doesn't take long to get a fresh install going well and it's easier to troubleshoot. I agree with your takes for sure though
The games running better on Linux is still more an exception than the norm. In the vast majority of cases games on Windows run better or the same.
Though once Wayland is no longer missing functionality and it's more broadly adopted and has less bugs, we might see Linux start to be more consitently ahead. At least on CPU-demanding (parts of the) games. Since that's where Linux is better. Strictly on GPU, Linux is not faster, unless the drivers are better, and that was never the case.
@@Winnetou17 That seems to be not true. There a plenty of benchmarks out there comparing how Linux handles games vs. Windows and its across the board better performance. It is for me for sure, 10 fps +. But again, this is because of the highly configurable and optimizable nature of Linux, particularly Arch. But that's a double-edged sword and can lead to plenty of headaches and screw ups if you're not careful. For most people, its not worth the headache switching to Linux for gaming, but for me it is. I take the headache so I don't have to fuckin use Windows ever again. I'm FREE!
I started using linux just because I liked penguin linux logo more than windows. we're built different 😎
who don't like a nice penguin :D
@Dust-cx8ge That good , If you can tolerate Microsoft none sense. I generally agree that not everyone should use Linux if they simlpy do not want to use it for whatever the reason. Linux will always be a revolving door because its a chicken before the egg problem for Linux. Linux needs more Software to get user but users need Linux to have more software before they will use Linux. I am fine if things stay as they are because Linux is good enough for most use cases these days.
Overall, most Linux users wait till Microsoft piss its users off and then they try to convert the users. Honestly, if Microsoft stop with the insane privacy policies most Linux users today would still be using windows.
I use Linux, because:
1. I got used to Ubuntu (from 2008) and Virtualbox (from 2009).
2. I love OpenZFS (started from 2018 with ZOL)!!
3. Software is free like in free beer and I can use cheap HW, see the summary from 2008 to 2029.
My cheap desktop hardware:
- 2008-2014 Pentium 4 HT (3.0GHz); 1.5 GB DDR; 500GB HDD (HP d520 SFF from 2002)
- 2014-2019 Phenom II X4 B97 (9.4x Pentium; 3.2GHz); 8GB DDR3; 128GB SSD; 500GB and 1TB HDD (HP dc5850 from 2008).
- 2019-2024 Ryzen 3 2200G (2.4x Phenom II; 3.7GHz); 16GB DDR4. 512GB nvme; 2TB HDD with reused 128GB SSD as cache (L2ARC). Own $349 Build.
- soon Ryzen 5 5600G (3x 2200G) and 32GB DDR4 for another 5 years :)
The 500GB HDD from the Pentium and the refurbished 1TB HDD from the Phenom both died end 2023 with ~10 power-on years :( :) :) The disks were blocked by ZFS, because of ZFS-CRC errors on recent data, but OpenZFS could still read the last weekly snapshot :)
Beautiful
software is free isn't really an argument for linux. any "free" software that runs on linux usually also has a windows version.
I think Microsoft, Apple, Google (**cough** Alphabet), and Linux all suck in too many ways. Consumers have been trained to accept.
what do think of using window enterprise long life with windows 10 loosing support , some of my games dont run right on 11
It's really just another tool. I use Linux mainly because like you say I can get most of my shit done that I want on it. One of the dudes in my band uses a Mac for mixing music and for the Live shows. I wouldn't use Linux for that use case as it's not robust or "stable" enough to do that. I'll write demos on Linux. But not record music. Windows is for that. Because that's where the software lives. Yabridge can't emulate everything.
Main reason to use desktop linux is freedom. This is also the main problem for desktop linux adaptation. There is a small % of people who want to spend hours reading a wiki, theres a small % who understand the KISS principle. I think the main market for desktop linux today are gamers, they are used to fucking around with config files etc They are ready to learn new things to get that 30fps+ performance boost :)
It's so funny i switched to linux 2 years ago, and i love it however you're my favorite linux'sh youtuber lol, i wanted to get away from windows for my own reasons, but the religious "like" side of the linux community seems like its biggest problem, its awesome and come so far since i try'd it over 20 years ago when i was 15, but end of the day people will use what works for them and should not be shamed for it, I love being able to do everything i want in linux and have that control that "I" want, for someone who does not want to put in the time to learn and make things work, linux is not an option. Great video i love your rants lol
I've been running Linux on my PC for six years and ditched Minecraft for Minetest a couple years ago because dealing with Microsoft BS was just too freaking annoying and I certainly didn't want to get bogged down and ripped off with the Apple proprietary ecosystem. ^.-
Got this recommended to me and I instantly thought oh fuck another Linux nut.. not again. But I was pleasantly surprised when it turned out you're one of the rare sane ones.
My few thoughts on this video:
-Linux still feels bad. I haven't used it in quite a long time, but I guarantee that it's still as janky as it always was. And people don't like that. Windows XP felt better than modern Linux. And MacOS is arguably even better than Windows. This is probably the worst thing for me, and why I won't ever use Linux as a main OS.
-I don't like the linux file system and the 'everything is a file'' idea. sure, it's probably just what I'm used to, but still, it seems like a complete downgrade from the windows FS
-the fragmentation of the billions of distros doesn't help at all. And gnu is this but the kernel is that, but the window manager is this but the wayland wine proton is that. people don't want to think about any of that, especially the normies.
-on the topic of freedom, open source, and tinkering with the system - first as you said nobody cares. second, I like tinkering, I like poking stuff and seeing how it works, and I still prefer windows. yes some things are a bit locked down, but it's still relatively accessible, just not in the normal way. people have "hacked" and patched windows in many different ways.
-even for development I like windows better. We were "forced" to use CentOS for one course in college and for me it was just a pain, even though I understood it. Mate I just want to install the full fat Visual Studio, write my code and click the (run) "Local Machine" button. EZ PZ lemon squeezy. I mean I'm writing windows executables anyways.
-one of the "newest" arguments lately spurred by the windows recall "drama" is that of privacy. oh bill gates is spying on you from your webcam 24/7 and he's sending it to the NSA and Obama. yea yea whatever. While I don't blindly trust Microsoft or any other giant corporation, I do think that they can't actually be too shady. There's people checking on them all the time, and I doubt they'd throw away billions because of fines just for some stupid data of yours. Most of what they do is plain old telemetry aka usage patterns, and I'm completely fine with that.
-and lastly, I don't actually hate Linux. I love alternative OSes. I was one of the few people running Symbian OS, and later Windows Phone. I was interested in MeeGo and later SailfishOS, as alternatives to Android. I've installed Linux a couple of times in my life on my own volition. I've Installed Backtrack back in my younger days when we all wanted to become hackers, and then later Kali when they renamed it. I've tried Ubuntu multiple times as well and tried to make it work. But it's just not there yet. So I don't hate Linux, I just hate the annoying neckbeards that pop out of nowhere anytime Windows is mentioned. Like cockroaches.
for the windows privacy thing, we get this every new version of windows. a bunch of youtubers come along and proclaim the horror of it and they are switching to linux. some months go by, the features go in and the world moves on, still using windows and the frantic nay-sayers have to wait for the next version of windows to proclaim they are switching to linux again.
So while you're at bad arguments, let me try and make some good arguments as of why Linux on the Desktop is worth it:
1) Ease of use and better fool proofed design. (See immutable distros for example with flatpaks or snaps for user apps)
2) It is easier to figure out what's wrong if something doesn't work on Linux as the errors logs are more comprehensive than the Event Log of Windows with random cryptic hexadecimal error codes.
3) Driver installation: Mostly not required on Linux which speeds up the process of setting up a new computer.
4) IF the user want's to configure something on their system which they form time to time also do on Windows, it is easier on Linux because there is a better file system layout to actually find and edit certain things. If there is not a UI for it. As the mostly is on Desktop Linux systems. On Windows ... yeah go to the registry to just move your taskbar to a different location in Windows 11
5) Lower recourse usage, as mentioned by you. Just look at the amount of electrical waste just Windows 11 causes for hardware not even than old. I mean we're not talking about 32bit CPU systems with 1GB RAM here. But stuff like first Gen Ryzen CPUs. Windows is very bad for the environment and it becomes an existential issue for all of us if too many people are running that OS.
6) Privacy is a big concern. Maybe not for the average pleb but it should.
7) The whole let's put AI in everything is also a concerning trend not just for Windows. Yeah let's invent an AI which takes screenshots every seconds and analyze them "locally" on the users machine. Just to cause even more system load, energy consumption and drive the planet to the graveyard! As if Windows hadn't enough performance issues with all the services, telemetry, anti virus already and now ... AI stuff atop of it!?
8) Security is actually a valid point. Yes you can fuck up Linux as well. But it is way harder. Not because there is less malware for it. In fact there is a ton of it. Yes in the end the user is the most fragile part in the security chain. But if we talk about security on the Desktop it is not to be the most secure. It is to be the least vulnerable one. I mean as a shady actor who would you go for? The low hanging fruits apparently. Ans these are the PCs running a data collecting operating system. Because it is easier to just get what has already been gracefully collected and even organized than to do this all by yourself.
I mean as a malware developer I would not care about the individual. I just need a fall guy. Either to get some money or to just lay false tracks. and it is a proven fact that Windows is the least secure system by design. Plus it has a ton of idiotic users running it. But because they simply don't know it better. In the end all we can do is to make them aware of alternatives and maybe think of doing the switch just for their own sake.
To sum up my main arguments: Windows is an existential issue to all of us looking just at the amount of waste and additional power consumption it causes. I even would go this far and would require Microsoft to be liable for the damage they cause to the environment just because of their very bad business practices and software design.
Yes some might argue, but the top 500 super computer cause way more damage due to their raw power consumption. While yes but actually no. 500 super computer vs 5 billion devices running Windows. I think we all can agree that the 500 is not the main problem here.
But Windows on ARM! Yes but again. Swapping all the x86 PC with more power friendly ARM systems will still cause a massive amount of electrical waste.
Anyway. I personally use Linux on the Desktop because it is way easier and time saving than maintaining Windows. Actually I do not even need to touch my OS at all. I installed it once and never touched it since then. It updates all on it's own in a none disruptive way and just keeps on rolling and in case of an unexpected boot errors it even self repairs within in a few seconds because it just rollsback to a previous snapshot. It will then just take like 20 seconds to boot instead of 15. All my software comes from flathub or by using a distrobox container and never required me to modify my main system at all. Not even enter a root password. Because all the apps are installed just for my user and no changes to the operating system needed to be made. Something mere impossible on Windows.
So actually I run Linux out of laziness an less because of ideological reasons.
- Posted from a 11 years old Windows 11 unsupported Laptop running up-to-date software and being still shockingly fast in 2024.
I'm at #2 and already laughing my ass off.
It's Stupid Easy These Days.
Was given a Dual Boot 386 in 1996 as a birthday gift from my uncle who upgraded.
Win3.1 & Slacware... whatever it was in '96 LOL with almost NO Documentation.
2k3 I Had P2's & P3's at my first IT Job, I had a CompUSA Work Account, My first Purchases were RedHat9.0 & SuSE 90 Boxed Copes with 10 CDs & 4/5 DVDs in the Box LOL
i mis the old Linux boxes with all the software on DVD's or CD's lol. you felt like a king with all those things :D
@@KentsTechWorld And for $59.00-ish Bucks
Meanwhile M$ is $100+, and at the time Xp wasnt even SP2, so We would Downgrade Everything at work to Win2k SP4 lol
Most of my time at my computer is spent toying around with C++ or using a browser and Arch works great for those purposes, so it's what I use, but I have never recommended it to anyone else. My friends need to work with MS Office or relax playing some games as easily as possible and that's not what Linux is designed for, nor will it ever be. Trying to push it on absolutely everyone and outright lying about what it can do well will only hurt everyone's perception of both the software and community surrounding it. It's too bad the Stallman cultists are too deep in their own little world to realize or even care about what normal people want out of their PC.
Gnu/Linux is designed to do all that, but you want to run miscro$oft product in gnu/linux, then gnu/linux is not for you or you friend. 😊
based pfp:)
Indeed if you do not have Internet access then getting help online would be difficult.
even for any products now a day
I agree with you Kent. People these days want a service so they are willing to pay for a service. Here in Florida it is very hot and people take their car for a complete car wash instead of them cleaning the car. Its the service and the price that people willing to pay. OpenWRT is very good for me to use on my router because I know how to get what I want but for most people they like plug and play. Open source is used by people that know how to get things done and someone that is into the market. Most people that I know do WIFI instead of cable. It looks better they say but WIFI has limitations.
majority of windows users who would be convinced to run linux would probably be convinced by
free
stable unbreakable and easy to fix if breaks with no special knowledge
windows like familiar design interface and workflow
double click program installers and stand alone programs (either containerized or runing on bare metal without user being asked too many things to do)
including wine configured by default to just work
basically a chromebook but with actual admin powers
i mean packet mannagers are cool but many windows users would be feeling safer if they could just download any deb or rpm package double click on it and just click next to install
windows user account elevating privliges scheme like uac no constant password asking if they already logged in you should be able to just click yes /no to elevate privliges
because most of user experience is basrd on familiarity and common sense, terminal is as good as using free dos , nobody would run windows from a shell prompt, you could but nobody would like to do it and "running linux" the arch linux community way of describing it is the ting most computer users avoid or simply don't even think about
The problem with Linux is that it's too fractured. Why can't there just be Gnome and Arch?
bad argument, there is flatpak/appimage and xorg, desktop applications only need to run on those to have full compatibility
Because i disagree. The next user will disagree and the next will disagree etc... Everybody has their own Linux distribution preference. You might reasonably argue that is a problem, but streamlining the distributions would cause other problems. What about XFCE? Cinnamon? KDE Plasma? Mate? etc? Ban them? There have been many attempts to unify Linux in various means such as using package managers, Flatpak etc. But ultimately, supporting Linux from a corporate stand point is always going to require more support than other operating systems outside of the server space... I think we as Linux users should finally accept this...
If that were the only choice, I'd stick with Windows.
Because Gnome and Arch both suck.
Not good, cuz if it happens, your are not going to like or use it, linux is good the way it is, pick the version you like and i use, if you don't like what you see, create you own env, if you cant cuz if too complicate for you, stay in windows and be happy
Just got my hands on an Lenovo Thinkcentre M700 i5 and a KVM beside my Win 11 gaming pc.
Planning on installing Fedora 40 KDE on that Lenovo... also have an older laptop with Fedora KDE.
Greetings from Høje Taastrup. :)
I daily drive Linux because I just simply don't like windows. I offer to help people interested in switching but if they're happy on windows then why bug them? I honestly don't understand the pushy people. Worse than religious zealots at times....
Ofc Windows Server is used a lot in auth because it is the skeleton of AD. 🗿
@@reecesx I know
I dont own my copy of windows. Thats why microsoft keeps turning shit back on when i turn it off
That makes not sense what so ever :O
If an app requires Windows for one reason or another. It is not worth my time and especially money.
Linus Torvalds himself once said that he startet Linux as a Desktop Operating System.
I heard in a few Videos you saying Linux is not meant to be a Desktop OS.
Thats simply not true.
Search on TH-cam this:
"Q&A session with Linus Torvalds: Why is Linux not competitive on desktop"
I would rather believe the inventor of Linux.
i think he himself knows best how linux was meant to be .. .don't you think?
nope. He wanted a unix workstation for dev work, and he was interested in the new 486 chip. But could not buy a sun system like the one once he used a uni, so he made linux.
Tist out of his own mouth from interviews from the 90's and on.
He was not interested in a "Desktop"! He did not even think anyone would care, and like i said when people did care he started to want more out of it.
And I soon have almost all Linus videos there all the way back to reading articles in the 90's.
Like I keep telling people. i been researching this for close to 30 years now.
The video you talk about is his take on why linux is not winning the desktop.
Btw he also thinks there is too much fragmentation in the desktop market for linux!
the two videos talk about why he made it and why it is open, I can't seem to find the one about him wanting a workstation. But they are out there, just relly old :O
th-cam.com/video/fg_XzyVyhDU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/actgZVvs_Jk/w-d-xo.html
Love your videos!!!!!!!
you might wanna see: bryan linduke latest linux sucks 2024 video i guess
give a tl;dw please?
Dude has kind of lost it over the years though, not the best example in context.
i used to watch all of his videos, but he kinda don't get it any more :O
It feels like he stopped caring, and just say things for the sake if trying to pamper to the tribe.
He could have changed, i have not watched him in a few years.
@@KentsTechWorld ok thanks for replying. i always like fellow content creators replying
@@cygnusghedepereu6885 tl:dr; linux is being taken over by leftist lunatics, the linux foundation is spending money on anything but linux.
Also, the reason Linux is used on web servers isn't necessarily because it is better. I would argue it is used primarily because it is free and good enough to do the job.
Actually it was better.
There was respectable security tests in 90s using automated stress testing and Linux and GNU software did perform better than other unix systems. Reason was likely that they didn't have so much legacy to worry and GNU folks make decision to aim directly to 32-bit systems while other unixes had 16-bit roots.
And back in 90s and early 00s, it was really much easier to setup Apache HTTP server using terminal than setting up IIS to Windows with mouse. Major reason was that Apache HTTP configuration files have documentation written in comments and they can be commented when something is changed, and configuration files where easy to handle.
But instead in Windows, there was small sized dialog, and it has that "Microsoft feature" lack of resize, settings go somewhere hard to find place... so it was garbage. That wasn't surprise that Apache + PHP top of Linux get hugely popular on web site hosting, eCommerce and CMS market instead of IIS + ASP.
And what also happened is that web technology become standard way to make user interface. So it is not just some company landing page or eCommerce. Business applications are mostly written top of Linux.
🎯
I had three reasons why I switched to Linux, and I believe they're good arguments as well
1. unmatched privacy because windows is full of spyware you can't disable easily
2. GNOME UI philosophy is amazing and you can't get anything GNOME-like on Windows, and with MacOS it's a lot of work
3. whereas normal linux distros are not necessarily more stable, NixOS is since it has built-in redundant configuration management. If you change something and you fuck it up, you can revert back to the previous one and everything is still working perfectly. Then you can unfuck your fuck-up and continue working like normal. This makes it very hard to brick your system which is something amazing imo
Kent, I say this as someone who has recently gotten into linux and stumbled upon your videos because of the youtube algorithm, this is probably the first one I watch where it doesn't seem like you hate linux despite being a video about bad arguments for it
To some extent I understand where you are coming from. However open source code being more secure doesn't mean that everyone needs to read through it. Just like we saw this year with the xz backdoor, it only takes one dev to find a problem. And the more access developers have to source code the faster these issues are found. The point has never been to audit all code on your system. It is simply allowing more developer's eyes on the code
secure code is all about the dev not the ability to read it or have access to it. like i said mot other dev's don't look at others code, that fact have been proven.
And people in close source audit and check others code all the time, it's part of the QA part of dev work. Some dev companies have whole teams doing nothing that that :O
Also there is not proven fact that open source find or fix problems faster, People have researched this for over 30 years now, and again it all comes down to how good are the OG dev team, and how well do they test their programs. And the out side people that find's 99% of the problems are other companies that get paid to do it or it's there job.
Other dev's only look at others code if they really, really, really have to. cos they don't get paid to fix others mistakes ;)
@@KentsTechWorld I think the argument is more so that just because most devs don't, it doesn't mean that no devs will. Yes how secure the original organization is able to make the software is by far the most important factor. However between open and closed source software only one gives the possibility for out of organization code inspection
The way I see it, your dev team is essentially expanded from those who work for you, on the software. To also include some of those who work with your software
Would you make the argument that closed source software is more secure? If so why?
"Just like we saw this year with the xz backdoor, it only takes one dev to find a problem": The problem did not come to light by a "dev" reading the source code.
@@CasinoWoyale You are right. If what you mean is it wasn't found by a developer opening up a repo for his favorite afternoon reading material, then yes! It was not found by reading through source code. The funny part is that it couldn't have been. The backdoor only existed by taking a page out of the closed source book. It existed as "test" binaries. Now lets look at two scenarios the developer who found this back door could have found himself in.
1) The code is open source: You as a user of the software notice ssh logins taking longer. You have the ability to report an issue to the main developers. You also have all the same tools and abilities as the developers of the software to do detective work. If you so choose, you have the ability to use these tools, like open source code and commit histories, to try to find the problem yourself. (This is what happened)
2) The code is not open source: You as a user of the software notice ssh logins taking longer. You have the ability to report an issue to the main developers. That's it.
The problem with closed source is; no matter the priority of the problem for the user, or their ability to find the problem themselves. They are entirely dependent on the developers of the software to solve the issues
I generally agree with your assessments of these arguments. Here's my "good" arguments for switching to Linux:
1. Microsoft is already doing things in Windows that waste your time and make your experience worse in order to meet their business objectives, such as nagging you to switch to Edge and Bing, requiring a Microsoft account, enabling OneDrive by default, and so on. There's every reason to believe they will continue do more of this in each new version, and if you depend on Windows you will have no choice but to live with it as previous versions will not receive security updates.
2. Linux has in Flatpak a convenient and secure way to install new software and keep it up to date. The Windows equivalent is the Microsoft Store and it's not useful in the same way as it's missing most widely used software, by contrast many people can accomplish everything they do with their computer on Linux using only software from Flathub.
3. Linux has two great desktop ecosystems with Gnome and KDE that each have their own substantial differences from the way the Windows desktop works. You may find you prefer one or the other of them over the Windows way of doing things, as I did with Gnome.
so i can say from experience that Linux waste more user time than windows.
I have seen people spending more time doing the same work on Linux more than not.
Linux is great for tinkers, but that also mean you are spending more time setting it up to just work, if you not running a headless server. And most companies would lose money using it as a desktop, mostly for the lack of good alternatives for programs they use that is windows only.
Just where i work, it would maek over 3 years of re writing tools, and workflows to be able to use Linux as a desktop. and we are small. and 99% of companies run like we do :O and MS has nothing to do with it, it's all about what programs that are great that work on it, and make people work faster.
Most people don't use Windows for the sake of Windows, they use it for the tools, programs etc is host
@@KentsTechWorld of course if you're already locked into apps for a specific platform it doesn't make sense to switch, that's true for any platform.
For people that are able to switch, perhaps due to using mostly web-based software, there are significant advantages to using Linux (or Mac) over Windows in not having to deal with Microsoft intentionally messing up your workflow to make more money off of you.
I'd like to like this video, but your counter arguments are kinda a mess as well
so saying my computer is not a server as a counter argument to linux own the server market so you should run it :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
@@KentsTechWorld even tho your counter-argument makes total sense there, I haven't really heard such an argument in the first place. But I wasn't talking about this one anyway
'Linux' is not the OS..
OS distribution's using the Linux kernel is correct way to speak about it.
Unless you start to teach the 'it works' masses how it actually works...
They never going to adopt anything but what they are being feed by the corporate behemoth's.
So teach/speak correctly about stuff and maybe the masses learn something in the process?
That includes being specific about everything,
every software component.
ackshually ...
Acktually "Windows" is not the OS. Microsoft OS distributions post 2000 using the NT kernel or NT system architecture is the correct way to speak about it..(adjusts glasses)
I think a Kernel is nothign more than machinecode the CPU can use, so maybe we should stop calling it kernel.
@@AndrewTSq 🙃
you have to learn about social constructs and what it means for words.
AKA you use the wording most people understand when you are talking to a broad group of people with massive different understanding and knowledge.
So for most people Linux mean the distro, and even the one that knows it's only the kernel, will use the name Linux to talk about them using a Linux based distro.
And this is not a teaching video, this is not a tech video.
It's a a observation video, about how some Linux users have some bad arguments for running a Linux based OS.
And you are one of them it seams
Yeah! I don't understand people who install Linux just to tell everyone about it. No. You're doing it for yourself. Don't let anyone judge you for whatever you're using. It's your PC.
it's honestly impressive how consistently awful your arguments are
linux is a desktop os and many people and organizations are switching to it, you're just coping due to your 8GB of RAM you paid half a kidney for
Yeah "many".. clearly because 4% user base after 30+ years is collosal.. 😂
The thing is you haven't actually refuted anything he said. Ad hominem isn't really an argument and 4% isn't "many". I don't agree with everything he says but you haven't said anything at all.
Thanks for proving my point.
And you will be happy to know i am typing this from my 32GB Linux machine :P
Also should i get a 4GB machine for ML and AI?? i need to train some networks for my work :O
You guys completely lost the reason of the existing of gnu/linux. Just use windows 11 with its AI copilot and system recall and be happy, be happy with your mandatory online account in windows 11, be happy when miscrosoft decide what to do with your computer without your permission, if windows is the right OS for you, just use windows and let gnu/linux and its users in peace, let them be happy too, if gnu/linux is not for you, don't use it.
missed the point did you lol.
The video is not about who it's for, just that Linux users have bad arguments :D
and i even at the end talk about some good arguments you all have.
This is not a windows vs linux video at all.
So maybe you did not watch it ;)