just a heads up. If you make a whole essay I am not going to read it. I just don't have the time. I am working on like 5 coding projects, and other videos. And the few I read just did not watch the video or listed to it if they did. So keep it sweet and short :) Maybe make a response video and post it in my discord, and I could react to it?
most people that understand computing and PC users do. I been talking to it pros and everyday users for over 20 years now about this subject. People think I just take all of this out of a magical hat lol
Thank you for your sober, based, and principled arguments, definitely clear out my view of noise. I see many linux YT, even some who are "newcomer" to linux, are mindlessly pushing the same jargons, just relaying same shits, may be to attract relatively small but loud and loyal or die-hard (I think they want others to see them that way) linux viewers.
The fact that there is Soo many forks is championed as a strength. Is exactly why it's a weakness. There's too many ways to do things. There are tangible benefits to standards. When you have to change software to run it on your machine with chmod you have a big problem.
If you use Mac OS or Windows and you are using non-standard programs, you are still facing the same 'problems'. There will be always users like him. We had the same problems with Windows years and years ago. I remember the time Windows didn't exist.
While I have become more comfortable with the terminal (in the sense of getting things done fast it's hand down the best for that), I can understand why it's such a huge detractor for new users. Most tools for Linux are still developed with a heavy focus on using the terminal because of the agnosticism of it. Terminal applications tend to work pretty universally across distros (and sometimes even across completely different OSes) where GUI applications have to constantly concern themselves with differences in desktop environments and distros (or if they even have a desktop environment at all). It's something that I would love to see improve if there's going to wider adoption but at the same time I can''t really blame developers that are prioritizing their time making sure their tools work consistently over making them easier to use. I can't blame them for spending time making a tool that will work in most systems versus a few dozen versions of the same tool modified to work in a niche environment.
That statement you made about intro-perspective thought first off is gold. I'm about to switch to Linux myself to avoid windows upcoming "recall" spyware so I am a prospective new Linux user by my own good since that enough is enough. So as far as the wide base of Linux community I trust your assessment as you undoubtedly have had tons more exp on this OS. But I believe that statement you made applies to so much of the world in general, and if by some miracle humanity could overcome all its pride and apply that approach I believe it would change everything. And I also have a buddy whom is like me that has given up on Windows and in the coming up discontinuation of support for 10 he will likewise make the switch we have been using Windows since MS Dos in the 80's up through all iteration 3.1, 95, 98, NT, ect..
1. The hardware requirements for copilot are: .. Snapdragon X Plus and the Snapdragon X Elite .. 16 gigabytes (BG) DDR5/LPDDR5 RAM .. 256GB SSD/UFS How many people do you know using a Snapdragon X plus or X Elite with 16 GB DDR5 RAM? .. also it's OPT-IN So 'recall' at this time doesn't really effect anyone. That said the fist thing you do on ANY OS is lock down privacy and security. 2. Free support for Windows 10 ends in October 2025 (there's 3 years paid support past this). I often use MX Linux, major releases which generally require the OS to be re-installed, occur every 1 to 2 years. The longest Long-Term-Support (LTS) are maybe 3 to 5-years, Windows 10 was around close to 10 years - that's a very long time. Every computer sold with Win10 pre-installed since July 2018 has had TPM 2.0 installed, it should not be an issue to upgrade to Win 11. When I upgraded to Window's 11 (which I find way better then Windows 10) I did one PC, waited for patches, then a year later did my others PCs. I also like to do fresh installs of OS major upgrades (which I do with Linux as well). 3. I would suggest that to run Linux use fast USB thumb drives (mine are Gen 2 1,000 MB.s) or external SSDs.
This guy have been using linux longer than most of its users have been alive lmao. What I hate is people selling linux as a windows replacement when it's not!! and then blaming everyone for the Linux's short comings and flaws.
ironically, for web development it's usually Windows that gives you the most headaches. From Linux most of the things are already set up so it's less hassle. So it's all about what infrastructure is the most adequate for your work. Are you a java dev? Linux, no probs. Do you work in multimedia or are a gamer? Nope, Linux is barely going to work (IF you manage to get it to work). Truth is, many of the things that don't work on Linux are caused by Linux devs being arrogant a-holes and gatekeeping everyone they don't like from software development. "Hey, let's make an XYZ alternative! But let's make it cross-platform so I can help development from Windows." They'll laugh in your face and ridicule you. "No, we won't make it cross-platform because Windows is evil. Besides, if we make it people will just use it on Windows. No, we have to make this linux only because GNU FREEDOM." Then nobody joins the project, it collects dust until the devs just give up and say "here's the code, work on it". Final result: There's no XYZ alternative for Linux, and it's all the gatekeepers' fault.
GNU folks had very important role on computing history but what really happened is open source became dominant. There very little software left anymore that is not using open source. And that is where GNU folks failed. Open source does matter less for consumers, it matters for developers. Developers care a lot that they are using open source but what is delivered to customer doesn't matter. And those Linux devs are NOT working like that what you described. In reality Linux devs build their software in way it runs on Linux server, and user interface is running on browser so they don't need to support some dumb people of installation or need to care compatibility of different client OS. Browser solves that. Linux is then defacto standard in servers, and almost every UI what is made run on browser, and everyone is happy.
Lennox does work right out of the box for most printers and other stuff. It’s windows that does not work right out of the box for some things you have to install drivers. The fact is was certain Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, you plug in a printer itself installs you have a driver right then and there
It works for me. If Canonical or SuSE or whatever want to sell you their "desktop", then I agree that they should be listening to users and fix their shit. But linux and 99% of the ecosystem aren't over-promising anything. When you learn what hardware and software works well together no mac and especially not windows will ever beat linux neither in stability, versatility or performance.
"almost no one uses the terminal" is insane. I'm a backened engineer and the terminal is the first thing I open and use throughout the day, daily. Did you forget that NeoVim exists and it's literally a text editor in your terminal? If I want to SSH into my remote server, I do it through my terminal too. Maybe I am out of touch, but last time I checked, a fair bit of developers on Linux touch the terminal daily. Even considering IDEs, I can't fathom how you even develop without touching a terminal. Apart from that, I pretty much agree with everything you said. (Arch btw, could you tell? lol)
out of ALL the dev's in the world you are not the norm. I spake danish, so by your logic everyone speaks Danish :D Yes you are out of touch, and not all dev's use linux. Of course there are more people that use the terminal on Linux. but again, they are not the norm, Linux is not the norm, so we can't treat it as the norm, or as a way to gage what most people do, as most are not using linux, or coding under linux!
@@KentsTechWorld Devs that don't use Linux development are usually doing workarounds and run Linux containers on Windows / Mac using some virtualization layer, or they are just doing only frontend native app (those are rare). Most of us can't avoid Linux because Linux containers are defacto in datacenters. And it is not limited to that. If you want comfortably to build C++ code to run in browser, solution is Linux containers. Or how about profiling carefully low level code to your embedded device? Guess what you need to Valgrind. Or how about doing just normal Javascript/Typescript development and add something from NPM? Uh oh, there was native code and it fails to compile because it was not used on Linux. Then there is AI programming. Linux is a bit broad here, they are all using Ubuntu because nVidia development kits are made for Ubuntu.
@@KentsTechWorld Just because its not norm doesn't mean that "almost no one uses the terminal" is a valid claim - at least this is the point I'm trying to touch on. I'm not trying to say that "everyone" uses it, I'm just saying that it's not that "no one" uses it.
Users won't come without the software and the software won't come without the users, but that's where a company would have the funds and brain power to reach out to developers to get a port working, but Linux is free, so the funds aren't there and the maintainers are very often entitled Stallman cultists who would rather light themselves on fire than reach out to people who make proprietary software. The Linux Foundation won't bother either, because despite all the big companies being on the board, none of them care about making a general purpose OS. It works for their servers, so it's fine as is. Linux will never be more than a nerd toy and that's perfectly fine, we just need to stop pretending it is more than a toy and stop recommending it to people it won't work for. No, my grandmother would absolutely notice if I switched her over to Mint and she would get very mad when the web browser eventually stops working because she hasn't been manually updating her packages for 5 years.
@@vranigavrani Windows doesnt have regressions every other update due to standardization and solid organizational structure and everything works.. Linux has regressions all the time due to its nature and even native stuff dont work properly very often so i dont know in which ways you think linux is better but at the end of the day its irrelevant because people simple will not put up with this and thats the end of the story.
I love linux as a casual user and I 100% made myself feel like I need to be a hardcore linux user & move to "harder distros" but all it taught me is I appreciate a good GUI & a OS that works so I went back to linux mint recently from tumbleweed cause it is just a good distro. I agree with a lot of what you say here in terms of just average every day people just want shit to work & dont wanna deal with a terminal.
Linux developers don't care about end users nor daily life productivity, hence most tools are just left as terminal's or bare scripts (iex. web frameworks?).
@@blackman7437 Most of the major contributors of the bigger and more relevant FOSS don't need to care for money. They're usually employed by a major IT company, or have their own, and make enough to not need to bother. FOSS is a political ideal and a hobby for most.
The vast majority just make something that works FOR THEM, and since they are all used to living in the terminal and slap-dashing a Bash script that will only work if specific packages are installed, half the Linux experience is "Compute like it's 1990" and roll 5d20 to see if the command you ran succeeded, while the other half is a small group of devs desperately trying to make the entire thing work as a modern consumer desktop experience.
I'm not a Linux user. But I have the feeling that it's good for embeded systems or for applications where it's needed to connect it to machines or for systems controls, like for example, satellite centers. And sincerely, I find that to be a really amazing world, where the OS meets physical machines. About for normal desktop use, I still think that is a quite different beast, because desktop has to accomodate a big variety of user cases in a very dinamically change environment where people install all kind of softwares for all kind of purposes like Windows. But that kind of environment that tries to accommodate all users, is not the best to manage single and critical applications. I use Windows and I love it, and if my field was engineering on telecomunications, or coding in edge systems or IoT, I would love to get my hands on Linux. I would like to see more Linux content focused in its strengh areas, but I guess is more difficult content to make, because is where developing meets other engineering fields. But still developers with Linux experience, can give us a glimpse of those areas even if they don't work directly on them. (watching all those videos from Linux youtubers were they only talk about distros and how to install them is, frankly, quite boring and limited and sometimes full of drama coming from the GNU area, but I don't see much content talking, for example, about Ubuntu core and where/how to use it)
Thank you, thank you, thank you! As an on-off Linux user for about 25 years you put words to my thoughts, and I couldn't agree more . Linux as a graphical operating system in 2024 is at best mediocre. As for the terminal: if a wanted to type everything i want done, I would have stayd with DOS.
1) Flatpak solves the problem of distribution fragmentation; 2) DaVinci Resolve works on Linux; 3) terminal is becoming mainstream (ChatGPT). So with that out of the way let's talk about the real reasons for low Linux adoption ...
I tried to be open minded about that guy but if you gotta name call somone for not using terminal then you dont deserve respect and all other opinions go out the door. Thabks Kent for laughs. Needed it.
Linux /is/ designed for the terminal, it's a server focused OS that's usually logged in remotely through ssh and are often run headless with no monitor or mouse connected. Though there are some pretty decent web-based GUI administration interfaces, though they also usually include an ssh terminal. Most linux programs are designed from the base to run from the command line because it allows them to script everything and it's just easier than coding a GUI for every utility. Desktop Linux is just somebody else slapping a GUI on top of it and I wouldn't be surprised if most GUIs are just running terminal commands under the hood. It's kind of like the old days of windows when it ran on top of DOS, but the difference there was they tried to make GUIs for as much as possible, while with desktop linux they're so fragmented they only do it for the most common stuff that's often used and ignore things that they consider simple or rare enough even though their perspective on simple is skewed having the knowledge/experience of developers. Also help files seem to be greatly lacking compared to windows. You're right about them needing to talk to the users who are struggling and figure out how to either eliminate problems or add enough hints and documentation to guide even noobs through the process. Seriously, in the windows 3.1 days I had literally /no/ internet at home as was still able to figure out how to use windows just from the help files. Try to do that on a modern linux distro like Linux Mint, the only included documentation I found was basically the equivalent of one of those "owner manuals" that's like a thin booklet or maybe a thick pamphlet.
Literally everything you just said is borderline useless to 99.99% of all PC users. Ok, cool, you can ssh into a server using just a keyboard... is it 1987? No? Well then not having access to a monitor or mouse is literally not a thing anymore. "Takes time to code a GUI" yeah, putting in effort to make a quality product takes time. I could just make MS paint sprites for my 3D shooter game, but that's fucking lazy and looks terrible. Not having a GUI for your software is fucking lazy. Full stop. No excuse beyond half assing it. not having a GUI is unacceptable, and has been for over 20 years. Stop making excuses for shitty lazy programmers. The man page isn't a book? How fucing little do you value the time you have left on earth that you want to dedicate days to learning 100s of pages just to use a fuckin app? No one wants that. If your user needs to read a small book to even use your app for daily use, you're a shitty shitty programmer and should stop right now.. Let someone who knows what they're doing make a good quality app. I'm sorry dude, but the fact you bring up Win 3.1 as some sort of excuse or defense is just laughable. We're not using Win 3.1, or 95, or XP. It's been 30 years. If it was good enough back then, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT acceptable at all in any way shape or form to keep doing it that way today. The practices you grew up with are dead and gone, and we should never ever have to go back to them.
Thats why i laugh at people stating that mint, zorin, and bunch of other "newbie friendly" distros terminal usage is totally optional....maybe in lalal land, reality is this, linux is the terminal, nothing else. And good luck figuring it out without any programming or scripting skills
@roklaca3138 If it's been 20+ years, and the thousands of developers that have worked on Linux STILL can't figure out how to run their operating system without having to revert back to 1980s tech and methodology, well... that's the kind of utter failure I would imagine a programer would try and keep secret. When you proudly say "YOU CAN'T USE LINUX WITHOUT THE TERMINAL!" you look like the village idiot standing up in a crowd proudly shouting "I JUST SHIT MY PANTS! :D" no one is impressed. That's embarassing, you shouldn't be proud of that massive of a failure as STILL needing to use the terminal to use any project created after 1998, for fucks sake not an OS in 2024/ (for clarity, I know you're saying havin to use the terminal is also a dumb thing, I'm adding on, not accusing you)
@KentsTechWorld...My guy.. I love your videos, truly do !! But it is GNU/Linux, because Linux is just the Kernel...the GNU part comes from the GNU core utilities that accompany the Kernel like the shell and several other things....hence GNU/Linux. But where you are correct is that most people just call it Linux..
Well I am a cheap Linux user and don't wanna pay for anything. Why should I pay for his video. I want things for free :) But to be honest, for most Linux users the OS is the tool to get things done and they tinker until it works the way they want to. (why do I have to think about your video with the good tool and the very bad ladder) But for most computer users they just need a tool and choose the OS that let's them handle the tool. And don't blame the companies not supporting Linux. Just don't buy their products..... No TUX no bucks... If you wanna pay for things that are not "free"
It's important to note that what many people call "Linux" is more accurately referred to as GNU/Linux. Here's why: Linux itself is just the kernel - the core program that manages hardware and resources. GNU/Linux is the full operating system, which includes: -The Linux kernel -GNU C Library (glibc) -GNU Core Utilities (coreutils) -Bash shell -Many other GNU tools and utilities The GNU project, started by Richard Stallman, provides most of the essential components that make Linux a usable OS. Calling it GNU/Linux acknowledges both the Linux kernel and the crucial GNU components. This distinction matters because it recognizes the philosophical and practical contributions of the GNU project alongside the Linux kernel developers. You can also build a linux kernel based os without GNU.
it's not GNU/Linux then ubuntu would be Gnome/Gnu/systemD/linux. don't confuse new people more then you need to. it won't make you look smarter :D the only people that call it GNU/linux is the FSF people
Even as someone who wants to recognize that effort, literally no one cares except for a tiny community within Linux-users, and bringing it up constantly is actively making people look at Linux-users like they are crazy. After a certain point, a name for one thing can become the reference for a whole group of things, even if its not completely accurate(See Band-Aids and Kool-Aid). Linux is just Linux now, no matter how hard anyone tries, mostly because "GNU/Linux" is a terrible name and the common person will just default to shortening it to whichever half sounds better, and in the end, Linux is the one that will win out every time due to not having any ambiguity when read on whether it's "G.N.U.", "Guhnu", or "Gnu".
@@kassd2 my point is it's not GNU/Linux. It's the Linux kernel free from the GNU coreutils. I don't get the pedantry around GNU/Linux. Yes, Linux wouldn't really exist as it is today without the GNU coreutils but it's still a thing of its own. I'm just going to keep calling it Linux and maybe it'll be worth making the distinction if Hurd starts to see mass adoption.
When I first started in computing I had to use the Terminal, and by that I mean an actual green screen VT100 'Terminal' connected to an IBM mini computer. Then I had to use the UNIX command prompt for a decade. We don't need to do that now, so stop making Linux stuff that only works with a command line. It isn't big and it isn't clever It's just old. You are not 'better' because you are writing stupid long and complicated commands at the command line you are clever if you can make a button that does it for you.
Is Linux a product? I'd say it's many products, and I mean by that there are lots and lots of variants, too many forks, and most don't really have support like an enterprise needs. Microsoft has a few versions, but typically people are on 7, 10 or 11. But even Microsoft only supports 10 and 11. Redhat support is expensive. Moving to Linux requires massive re-training, lots of enterprise software is written specifically for Windows, with IIS, .Net, WCF, etc. Enterprises use Linux where the package has been written for Linux, usually one or two specific distros.
so I just had a beer, so that means everyone had one :D there are people still using windows XP for work, so do everyone use Windows XP or are you and where you work just the exception and not the rule??
my opinion, linux developer are wasting their lifetime on a not so useful thing. linux ends up becoming another fork for another commercial product, namely IOS, Android, many other tools such as, routers, oscilloscopes, thermal cameras, etc.
literally android is linux. First and foremost, linux is a kernel not an OS. Any OS using the linux kernel is referred to as "linux", and Android *literally* is using and contributing to the linux kernel. Mac OS to the contrary does *NOT* use the FreeBSD kernel!! , it uses the *Mach kernel*, and borrows code snippets from FreeBSD, which is entirely different.
@@kolz4ever1980 Mac is based on BSD, it's not BSD. Android _uses_ the kernel with AOSP. It's only the apps and optimizations on top of that that are vendor-specific. Those two aren't even remotely comparable.
macOS use the FreeBSD driver stack, network stack, sound stack and a few others lol. anting go read the android kernel dev guide, they will tell you what I said. that's where I got it from. Even the Android dev's and owners don't call or say android is Linux, only Linux fanboy's do!
@@KentsTechWorld Andy Rubin developed what is now called "android". Google bought it from him, and re-marketed as "android". It was and still is 100% a linux kernel, and thus is linux, as all OS's using the kernel are called as such. I can understand the google PR department does not want to use the name "linux" for marketing reasons, but it is linux, as it is using a linux kernel. Google does not have the talent to make an OS from the ground up, and is why their other OS, Chromebook also is a linux. In terms of Apple, they are using a Mach Kernel, not a FreeBSD kernel. Looking at the code it can been easily been seen.. What is more FreeBSD is *NOT* a kernel, FreeBSD is a full operating system. To the contrary linux is *NOT* an operating system, it is just the kernel. Thus what qualifies as a "FreeBSD" is much more stringent than what qualifies as a "linux".
6:45 - "The terminal is useless outdated piece of sh*t" - lol. If you are advenced user, you need to use it. Even on Windows. I can't imagine using computer without terminal for personal stuff or work. I use it on Linux, I use it on Windows. Using it on server and on desktop. A lot, lots of people are using it and will be using it.
People who say the terminal is outdated are just outing themselves as low skill individuals. They probably just use their Linux machine for gaming and browsing the internet. If they do any software development at all it will be in an environment where more skilled individuals have setup all the infrastructure and tooling for them so they only have to push to GitHub from their IDE
Let them if they want but stop pushing it down peoples throat like linux community does alk the time, all the content i see about linux is always messing with terminals....i do not need that as a gamer.
Problem is that Windows Server costs a lot of money to run on server. For point mouse pointer and click operations on Windows Server, licence costs a lot of money. Linux server doesn't cost a lot of money for licences.
linux is only about 10% to 5% cheaper for a license. The cost of ownership with linux is again about 5% cheaper than Windows. In a lot of cases the cost of ownership for Linux is greater than Windows (new hardware, more downtime in some software, staff training, hire outsiders(Linux admins are paid more than MS admins or repair people)) This is not new info, companies do this calculation all the time. and if linux could save a company that much, they would all use it!!
@@KentsTechWorld That may be true in Europe. In Africa, that's not the case. It is far cheaper to run Linux servers than Windows servers. Windows licenses are priced in US dollars, which is crazy expensive (Imagine paying 20x the price per license in Euros, and you get an understanding of the cost to local businesses this side). Companies only run Windows server when the applications they need to run, requires it. When they can get away with a Linux server, they do so with a smile.
@@KentsTechWorld Almost every server is on Linux already. I also count every container as virtualized server because they really have that server code stack top of kernel. So software is put to Linux containers and deployed to infrastructure where of course has Linux top of metal or at least VM to get best efficiency. In infrastructure level there often has licensing costs but most of time it is not licensing that interest, it is support from tech company. But developer just deploy the Linux container and it is someone else trouble is to take care that there is Linux. Very often all infrastructure level is outsourced so no need to have own support stuff to take care of servers so developers deploy on some cloud. Own servers make sense only on larger organizations, or there is just huge amount of capacity required so creating and supporting own infrastructure is cheaper. Linux is so widely used so there isn't likely many company that doesn't run any of the software on Linux servers. Companies just not often maintain infrastructure themselves, that is outsourced. So I would say that every company is using Linux. That is also the reason high cost of Windows server, it is mostly obsolete so Microsoft squeeze the last money out of it from those who have that kind of dependency.
I am using arch linux and it is a pain in the arse at times lol. I will continue to use it for now, but ideally I will have multiple computers and operating systems like a macbook, a windows desktop and my linux desktop. I can get the same dev environment in mac as linux lol and use windows for like windows specific shit especially gaming or certain windows shit i need that just doesnt work on linux. Atm i have two computer i use side by side one is linux and one is windows and its just awesome
but if i wasnt a developer and just wanted to do gaming and basic shit theres no way i would recommend linux iw ould totally just be happy with spyware and windows
@@averdadeeumaso4003 "haha, ew Debian. I bet you're as old as your updates" - *proceeds to brick half their system with a rolling release that was barely tested* they do it for free, and we enjoy the spoils
@@moffichu9150 Arch is best for gaming compared to other distros. There's a reason valve used it. Bleeding edge release model is great when you want the latest stuff. It's not like packages are unmoderated The idea that people "brick half their system" is just severely misinformed.
Using word Linux in this context is wrong, because Linux is only kernel. He is complaining about user space programs like desktop environments, video editing programs etc. And user space programs are not maintained by Linus Torvalds (Linux maintainer, if someone didn't know). Linux desktop is basically lego of hundreds of different programs put together by distro maintainers
When has the guy complained that the hardware companies don't support linux? He made a factual statement. And the fact is that these pieces of hardware and software not working is why people don't use linux, and the lack of users on linux is why the companies don't support linux. The only thing you can do is make your own alternative software and hardware as good as possible, which linux does and linux users use, but then the people complain that they are already trained in the software and don't want to relearn and don't want to re-buy hardware - which is absolutely right, but linux users cannot port adobe software (and if they could it would be a crime). When it comes to fracturization, no we cannot just choose 1 or 2 distros. That is how open source works, that is the same as if you complained that not every story that has robin hood in it is canon to the other ones - the character is public domain, the same as open source, so every idiot can make their own and there is literally no legal means to stop them. Also Microsoft didn't get as big as they are by changing their product to suit their customers. In the early days when most computers were still sold without a preinstalled operating system they did the biggest bluff in tech history. They called all the PC makers and told them that the software companies were all going to write their software for windows and that they would be loosing out by not shipping it preinstalled, then they called all the software companies and told them PC makers would all be shipping only windows machines from now on so they should make their software for windows or they would miss out on sales. Also they had horrible deals for the PC makers so they either sold only windows machines or none at all. And since enough of the PC makers and software makers bought their bluff the customers now all got started on windows PCs and got used to them. And as a linux user I can tell you, it doesn't matter what OS you are on it will feel weird and wrong to use a different one. I'm not saying "Linux would have won out otherwise, 100% trust me bro", but just that claiming Microsoft and Windows getting where they are on merit is an overstatement.
I've doing video editing on Debian 12 using Blender. Debian 12 is not fragmented and it works and it is stable. And it also works because I got standardized workflow that I've tested and nothing changes in my system so it works. I've never need to "fix problems". I've never have to, that is why I've always used stable operating systems. It just don't come anyone hard drive automatically, that requires OS installation that I don't recommend if someone has already working computer. Debian doesn't require terminal after setup is made. I'm developer and I use terminal a lot. Just faster to use commands (for test, deploy, coverage report, to see output of various tools etc.) than touch mouse. Also back in 90s GUI was much more useless and text mode editors were commonly to write software. Today Bash is actually killer app for developer and that is one reason why Linux based operating systems are preferred for developers. I also don't care what other people use for video editing. I don't need other people to adapt my video workflow and I actually don't recommend it on many cases because it has some productivity limitations. My workflow is just simple.
so you are the benchmark of computing use??? I have tried for almost 30 years and Linux is just a pain to use as a creative than other systems. Linux based OS's are only preferred for SOME dev's. most still want the MS tool chain and ecosystem.
@@KentsTechWorld Let's start from very basics: 1. You always need to know your requirements, then you choose tools, applications and ecosystem that fits it, and check all prerequisites like hardware and dependencies. In video editing and creative work perspective, I know my requirements as I create content related to my business needs, or in hobby stuff I like to work on visual effects and make cool stuff on my gear. And I know my requirements are very different than they are on other people. I've consulted using Magix Movie Studio to run on Windows 10 because requirement was editing band gig recordings. It was just so much more productive because it had one button audio/video sync. 2. If something is not standard (I mean real standard, like network protocols and similar), there are always dependencies. And if those dependencies changes, things will break by default if nothing is promised to keep stable. So when there is flow of data like in video editing or audio editing, the workflow is tested and locked so things don't break. I do like Debian for that reason, because every release is kept stable 5 year with minimal changes so it fits to building workflows top of it and allows 3rd party applications installed. That Magix + Windows was of course trade off compared to my Debian setup, because Debian is stable platform compared to Windows where you got changes in platform during Windows version upgrades, like Windows 10 21H2 to Windows 10 22H2. Those kind of changes affect on low level stuff so there are risk that something happens on example in video codecs or drivers. And risks were indeed realized on that Magix + Windows where multi monitor setup was fucked up on version upgrade and that required fixing. 3. Don't expect people to install operating system. Based on Microsoft research, 90% of consumers will use everything on defaults where they can. Sure there are 10% who like to change something, like browser or music player. Obviously when there is setup made for work or some serious stuff, there can be made setup for that purpose. There you can find example software developers. --- And you are very wrong about MS tool chain and ecosystem. Linux is *defacto* in datacenters. Almost everyone write code using Linux containers that run on Amazon/Google/Microsoft and others, or then it can run self hosted. Windows servers are rare and they are only found on large organizations where every client is Windows so they can run self hosted stuff (AD, fileserver etc.) on Microsoft ecosystem. Small companies / startups run stuff in cloud and hell no they are not buying $1000 licenses of Windows server. And because Linux has that defacto status, of course developers use Linux based OS. It is just convenient to have similar system on locally than it is on the server. There is also other standard: Almost every frontend is written to run in browser if possible. Browser is today standard way to run UI. Almost every finance, project management CMS, CRM, WMS, ERP etc. that businesses use are used with browser. So there is very little need to Windows in development. That is just foolish misconception. There are of course developers using Windows and Mac OS (like those who make native code to their ecosystems) and many developer on Windows uses Linux on WSL. Microsoft tools are however very common, Typescript and Visual Studio Code are hugely popular. ASP.NET is also used and there you can found Windows developers.
@@KentsTechWorld Yes, for the love of all that is holy, USE WINDOWS. Linux will not become another Windows, and that is a good thing. We need more choices in computing, not less. I don't want a blue coloured Windows and a red coloured Windows-clone. I use Linux to get away from the crappy Windows architecture and interfaces.
@@roklaca3138 It really depend on games what platforms are options. 100% free from command line or editing some text files/weird configuration is to use Playstation, Nintendo, Xbox, Android, iOS, and Windows in S-Mode. So I'm not recommending anything. If current one works, no need to change.
LOL!! Linux is literally FOR people to figure out how to work it. It's what we want in an OS for us devs. It makes you better. Personally I use both. Also, proprietary software that caters to Microsoft...
@@KentsTechWorldBeing a bit pedantic, that still depends on what you mean by “tinker”. We do get paid for tinkering with products and tools we think will benefit the company, and we have to in order to build a business case for the company adopting it or buying a license.
99 percent of people will not and should not be using the terminal. distros have advanced far beyond that. do i use the terminal? I use it to connect to servers that i work on with the term. its totally deprecated for self system management, its totally outdated. when i was a trainer i used to laugh at "Terminal snobs" because in real life, we use the most efficient method to achieve the goal.
"there is no need for 10k distributions" There is. It lets user to choose what they want to have by default without need to go full LFS or arch way. It simplifies entry and saves much time on reinstalls. "Standard desktop environment" Noooo... That would end up (and somewhat is) being gnome which is absolute crap and way worse than what windows have.
I don't think there needs to be more than 1 distribution. What there needs to be is the ability to fork. Multiple distributions is just an effect of the foundational principles of libre software. If Linux based OSes were no longer something that I could fork and create a new distribution on a whim, it's lost all of its appeal since it's not libre software.
He says some good points but I strongly disagree with the idea that Linux is a product. Some Linux distros are a product, but others are simply not. I know that the definition has been twisted such that free services are now products since they find something else to sell, but the reason a product is a product is that the goal is to get as many people as possible to want it. That is not the goal for all of Linux. Maybe the developers want it for some personal reasons, but there is no financial pressure. It works to say that Ubuntu is failing when it cannot support every hardware configuration it markets itself to because Ubuntu is a product. Canonical wants people to use Ubuntu as an avenue of making money from their support services. Here, this is Canonical 's fault. As soon as you remove the requirement that lots of everyday users must want to use your distro, it immediately stops being your problem. And I do think that's a healthy attitude that some distributions have. It is not Linux's fault. It is for example Ubuntu's fault, because only distros like Ubuntu ought to actually care.
The definition of a product is an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale. When I put my art on the internet I don't care if anyone looks at it or downloads it. I know some people have, and a few had even purchased prints from me. My art is not a product, those prints were. Linux is not a product, RHEL and Ubuntu are.
Kent, dude, Linux is not for you. The BSDs are not for you. You sound like a Windows user, and you should use Windows. It has a nice GUI with lots of fun spyware, perfect for the average person. And to top it off, it's not an outdated piece of sh!t, as you like to say. It requires the latest and greatest hardware, because it is just so absolutely cutting edge. It is like your digital parent, that knows what you need, when you need it, even if you don't know you need it. Stick to Windows. It is the perfect OS for you.
@@anonymousalexander6005 Excellent! Please continue using Windows. It's the absolute best option for you. Also, I don't care about technical sales terms like "ABI stable". I remember a Linux server running for two years before it was restarted in the mid 2000's, whereas Windows Server 2013 had to be restarted once a week to prevent performance degradation. Our experiences are not the same.
I really don't get the hate boner people get for such topics. I hate Windows, but I'm not going to rant for people not to use it. It's the same reason I'm not going to tell people to use some Colemak variant or sell their car or buy a motorcycle or whatever. People approach this with such insane attitude, and most times, you can tell they don't know what they're talking about.
FYI you do know I been using linux for over 26+ years right lmao. I could teach you a lot about linux if you want to lmao. I used linux distress that had no pkg managers and so on. but hey what do I know lmao
@@KentsTechWorld You wasted 26 years on Linux, and only now realized that Windows is your one true love? That's a really sad tale, my dude. Better late than never, as they say.
The problem with the Linux community not providing what you ask is not because of their lack of will or effort to do it, but active stifling of such efforts by those who consider Linux a threat to their business model.
Microsoft invented dev containers (for Linux). To create deterministic development environmentd. Not sure what they are talking here. On Linux you don't waste time on fixing the environment. Because we have mecanism to fix It automatically on every startup. Please don't spread false information. Linux is just better and thats why on Windows you have to use WSL and on Mac you use docker for Mac. Because Linux is the only OS that can create auto-fixable dev environments.
@@KentsTechWorld try to deploy a web using Windows containers and Microsoft IIS. WSL was made because its is easy to deploy webs on Linux. Microsoft reimplemented dotnet ecosystem to be run on Linux and docker containers and WSL to develop on top on that. Yeah, It could be seem wrong to say Linux is better but the statement is baked by multimillon decision and multi-year efforts. Yeah, Linux is better and thats why WSL do exist.
Problem with GUI is, that could be slow. For Linux keyboardist typing commands is faster interaction, than finding commands in GUI. And in GUI you cannot add parameters for operation.
cli needs prerequisite knowledge, gui doesn't. you can navigate it on any system with zero knowledge. terminal is good if you want to make complex replicatable scripts. let's say for tech support - it's easier to provide the user with a bunch of commands to copy and paste, but if you want the user to find their own solutions then there should be gui.
@@roklaca3138 No, that's not it. If you'd pre-install Linux on laptops and pre-build computers, you'd get a bigger market share for it. OSX wouldn't have any market share if a mac came with the choice of OS at buy time. For most people a smartphone is the perfect computer. Helps to organize your life, keep up on news, allows you to communicate, and, if you're a masochist, allows you to watch stuff. For most people smartphone + smart TV is the combination of device they actually need, a PC is simply above their usage requirements. Most users needing to interact with any form of computing simply aren't power users, they want to use 1% of the feature set available, if even that, and that has to work and be somewhat intuitive to follow along. They don't actually care about the OS or its features. If your use case is go on the internet, read some articles, stream some movies, read some mail, do some basic office work, which would roughly 2/3 of users, then pretty much every OS works exactly the same for you. Even differing software will look and feel same-ish, simply because most GUIs are build with the end-user in mind. You can use Windows, OSX, or one of the many Linux distros that focus on usability - like Debian, Mint, pop etc. You'll be able to use any of them just following along the GUI and they will work for you all the same. And I bet you, if Mint/Ubuntu/Debian would come preinstalled on pre-builds and laptops, people would just roll with it because it works. If your use-case contains gaming, OSX is not a viable option and the Linux distros get an asterisk, since some games still don't work, but the absolute majority of your steam library will work out of box. If your gaming routine contains classics/older titles that need Vista or older, Linux is actually the better choice. Quite a few classics out that won't work on Win 11 anymore, but do on Linux. The wine/proton solution has the positive quirk that it isn't dependent on the version of Windows, so backwards compatibility is actually better, at least in my experience. If your use-case contains creative work OSX is your best bet, followed by Windows, then, far off Linux, though, that will likely change in the next 5 years. There's already professional studios turning away from Adobe, simply because they try stunts like "We have non-exclusive copyrights to use, modify, sell anything you upload into the cloud. Also, by default, we send everything into our cloud to keep it safe." There's already an array of companies and professionals going for alternate software solutions. If your use-case contains anything professional where the computer isn't just the tool for it, but also the recipient of your work (i. e. programming, network administration, actual computing work), you'll be using console or terminal regardless of your OS, since usually you have more features and functions available in the terminal environment than in a GUI, if there's a GUI for the software you need. At that point, you'll likely be more happy with Linux than any of the others, simply because OSX and Windows will actively try to get into your way.
@@EasyGameEh "cli needs prerequisite knowledge, gui doesn't." That's plainly wrong, both need prior knowledge. There's no meaningful difference in typing "firefox" or clicking its symbol to open it. If you don't understand what you want to do and which software does it, you'll not succeed with either. If you know "I want to open firefox" then you'll manage with both.
nope! work instead of demanding!! work with other companies instead of fighting them!! make it easier for companies to support Linux! All i said in the video if you watched it or listened ;)
@@KentsTechWorld Ok, did I miss a memo? Where are the Linux people that are demanding something from others? Where are the Linux people fighting with other companies? Make it easier for companies to support Linux??? You know you can just use a language that can cross compile to different operating systems, right? Companies don't support Linux because it is more work, and they choose the path of least resistance (where the largest number of users are).
@@KentsTechWorld And if said companies are basically arseholes that says "Unless you have some kind of leverage, why the f- should we help you?" Like, say... Nvidia. Adobe. Microsoft (atleast pre-Nadela). I am all for cooperating with companies but companies do not want to cooperate unless it profits them in the short term. Long term everyone benefits more on an open ecosystem. Short term, the biggest players lose big time.
You're both wrong Linux is just the kernel ...stop making stupid videos to have clicks...that because of your kind that I went back to using W$ for my personnal station
another clueless fool lmao. you really think I don't know what linux is lmao. and you don't understand the thing called a social construct around words?? using Linux as a broad term, makes it easier for most people to understand as most people now a day use the term linux to describe a distro or remake. Now we on this fun train. you do know that the ubuntu kernel is not linux but a linux compatible kernel right??
just a heads up. If you make a whole essay I am not going to read it. I just don't have the time. I am working on like 5 coding projects, and other videos. And the few I read just did not watch the video or listed to it if they did. So keep it sweet and short :)
Maybe make a response video and post it in my discord, and I could react to it?
As a full-time Linux user for almost 20 years, I actually agree with everything you have said here.
most people that understand computing and PC users do. I been talking to it pros and everyday users for over 20 years now about this subject. People think I just take all of this out of a magical hat lol
Newest Distro "Peter Griffin Linux"
The paywall part really cracked me up to no end
Thank you for your sober, based, and principled arguments, definitely clear out my view of noise. I see many linux YT, even some who are "newcomer" to linux, are mindlessly pushing the same jargons, just relaying same shits, may be to attract relatively small but loud and loyal or die-hard (I think they want others to see them that way) linux viewers.
The fact that there is Soo many forks is championed as a strength. Is exactly why it's a weakness. There's too many ways to do things. There are tangible benefits to standards. When you have to change software to run it on your machine with chmod you have a big problem.
If you use Mac OS or Windows and you are using non-standard programs, you are still facing the same 'problems'. There will be always users like him. We had the same problems with Windows years and years ago. I remember the time Windows didn't exist.
Another excellent reality check. I would love a link to that video of the guy switching back to Windows.
We waited for reaction videos for a long time, we are back, baby. 😍
While I have become more comfortable with the terminal (in the sense of getting things done fast it's hand down the best for that), I can understand why it's such a huge detractor for new users. Most tools for Linux are still developed with a heavy focus on using the terminal because of the agnosticism of it. Terminal applications tend to work pretty universally across distros (and sometimes even across completely different OSes) where GUI applications have to constantly concern themselves with differences in desktop environments and distros (or if they even have a desktop environment at all). It's something that I would love to see improve if there's going to wider adoption but at the same time I can''t really blame developers that are prioritizing their time making sure their tools work consistently over making them easier to use. I can't blame them for spending time making a tool that will work in most systems versus a few dozen versions of the same tool modified to work in a niche environment.
That statement you made about intro-perspective thought first off is gold. I'm about to switch to Linux myself to avoid windows upcoming "recall" spyware so I am a prospective new Linux user by my own good since that enough is enough. So as far as the wide base of Linux community I trust your assessment as you undoubtedly have had tons more exp on this OS. But I believe that statement you made applies to so much of the world in general, and if by some miracle humanity could overcome all its pride and apply that approach I believe it would change everything. And I also have a buddy whom is like me that has given up on Windows and in the coming up discontinuation of support for 10 he will likewise make the switch we have been using Windows since MS Dos in the 80's up through all iteration 3.1, 95, 98, NT, ect..
Come and dive into Linux the water is warm ( ish )
1.
The hardware requirements for copilot are:
.. Snapdragon X Plus and the Snapdragon X Elite
.. 16 gigabytes (BG) DDR5/LPDDR5 RAM
.. 256GB SSD/UFS
How many people do you know using a Snapdragon X plus or X Elite with 16 GB DDR5 RAM?
.. also it's OPT-IN So 'recall' at this time doesn't really effect anyone. That said the fist thing you do on ANY OS is lock down privacy and security.
2.
Free support for Windows 10 ends in October 2025 (there's 3 years paid support past this). I often use MX Linux, major releases which generally require the OS to be re-installed, occur every 1 to 2 years. The longest Long-Term-Support (LTS) are maybe 3 to 5-years, Windows 10 was around close to 10 years - that's a very long time.
Every computer sold with Win10 pre-installed since July 2018 has had TPM 2.0 installed, it should not be an issue to upgrade to Win 11.
When I upgraded to Window's 11 (which I find way better then Windows 10) I did one PC, waited for patches, then a year later did my others PCs. I also like to do fresh installs of OS major upgrades (which I do with Linux as well).
3.
I would suggest that to run Linux use fast USB thumb drives (mine are Gen 2 1,000 MB.s) or external SSDs.
@@vranigavrani Kent is a good guy! He's critiquing the 'selling' points given to promote Linux
This guy have been using linux longer than most of its users have been alive lmao. What I hate is people selling linux as a windows replacement when it's not!! and then blaming everyone for the Linux's short comings and flaws.
ironically, for web development it's usually Windows that gives you the most headaches. From Linux most of the things are already set up so it's less hassle. So it's all about what infrastructure is the most adequate for your work. Are you a java dev? Linux, no probs. Do you work in multimedia or are a gamer? Nope, Linux is barely going to work (IF you manage to get it to work).
Truth is, many of the things that don't work on Linux are caused by Linux devs being arrogant a-holes and gatekeeping everyone they don't like from software development. "Hey, let's make an XYZ alternative! But let's make it cross-platform so I can help development from Windows." They'll laugh in your face and ridicule you. "No, we won't make it cross-platform because Windows is evil. Besides, if we make it people will just use it on Windows. No, we have to make this linux only because GNU FREEDOM."
Then nobody joins the project, it collects dust until the devs just give up and say "here's the code, work on it". Final result: There's no XYZ alternative for Linux, and it's all the gatekeepers' fault.
GNU folks had very important role on computing history but what really happened is open source became dominant. There very little software left anymore that is not using open source.
And that is where GNU folks failed. Open source does matter less for consumers, it matters for developers. Developers care a lot that they are using open source but what is delivered to customer doesn't matter. And those Linux devs are NOT working like that what you described. In reality Linux devs build their software in way it runs on Linux server, and user interface is running on browser so they don't need to support some dumb people of installation or need to care compatibility of different client OS. Browser solves that.
Linux is then defacto standard in servers, and almost every UI what is made run on browser, and everyone is happy.
Lennox does work right out of the box for most printers and other stuff. It’s windows that does not work right out of the box for some things you have to install drivers. The fact is was certain Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, you plug in a printer itself installs you have a driver right then and there
so if I use a pinter linux is amazing :O oh wait almost no one use a printer anymore lol.
you have to come up with a better argument
@@KentsTechWorld yeah dude, we stopped printing a long time ago, that's surely a thing of the past, everything is digital now...
It works for me. If Canonical or SuSE or whatever want to sell you their "desktop", then I agree that they should be listening to users and fix their shit. But linux and 99% of the ecosystem aren't over-promising anything. When you learn what hardware and software works well together no mac and especially not windows will ever beat linux neither in stability, versatility or performance.
"almost no one uses the terminal" is insane. I'm a backened engineer and the terminal is the first thing I open and use throughout the day, daily. Did you forget that NeoVim exists and it's literally a text editor in your terminal? If I want to SSH into my remote server, I do it through my terminal too.
Maybe I am out of touch, but last time I checked, a fair bit of developers on Linux touch the terminal daily. Even considering IDEs, I can't fathom how you even develop without touching a terminal.
Apart from that, I pretty much agree with everything you said. (Arch btw, could you tell? lol)
out of ALL the dev's in the world you are not the norm.
I spake danish, so by your logic everyone speaks Danish :D
Yes you are out of touch, and not all dev's use linux. Of course there are more people that use the terminal on Linux. but again, they are not the norm, Linux is not the norm, so we can't treat it as the norm, or as a way to gage what most people do, as most are not using linux, or coding under linux!
@@KentsTechWorld
Devs that don't use Linux development are usually doing workarounds and run Linux containers on Windows / Mac using some virtualization layer, or they are just doing only frontend native app (those are rare).
Most of us can't avoid Linux because Linux containers are defacto in datacenters. And it is not limited to that. If you want comfortably to build C++ code to run in browser, solution is Linux containers. Or how about profiling carefully low level code to your embedded device? Guess what you need to Valgrind.
Or how about doing just normal Javascript/Typescript development and add something from NPM? Uh oh, there was native code and it fails to compile because it was not used on Linux. Then there is AI programming. Linux is a bit broad here, they are all using Ubuntu because nVidia development kits are made for Ubuntu.
@@KentsTechWorld Just because its not norm doesn't mean that "almost no one uses the terminal" is a valid claim - at least this is the point I'm trying to touch on.
I'm not trying to say that "everyone" uses it, I'm just saying that it's not that "no one" uses it.
Users won't come without the software and the software won't come without the users, but that's where a company would have the funds and brain power to reach out to developers to get a port working, but Linux is free, so the funds aren't there and the maintainers are very often entitled Stallman cultists who would rather light themselves on fire than reach out to people who make proprietary software. The Linux Foundation won't bother either, because despite all the big companies being on the board, none of them care about making a general purpose OS. It works for their servers, so it's fine as is. Linux will never be more than a nerd toy and that's perfectly fine, we just need to stop pretending it is more than a toy and stop recommending it to people it won't work for. No, my grandmother would absolutely notice if I switched her over to Mint and she would get very mad when the web browser eventually stops working because she hasn't been manually updating her packages for 5 years.
users will come if the platform is BETTER and if there is BETTER alternatives.
Both are in Linux hands!
@@vranigavrani Windows doesnt have regressions every other update due to standardization and solid organizational structure and everything works.. Linux has regressions all the time due to its nature and even native stuff dont work properly very often so i dont know in which ways you think linux is better but at the end of the day its irrelevant because people simple will not put up with this and thats the end of the story.
I love linux as a casual user and I 100% made myself feel like I need to be a hardcore linux user & move to "harder distros" but all it taught me is I appreciate a good GUI & a OS that works so I went back to linux mint recently from tumbleweed cause it is just a good distro. I agree with a lot of what you say here in terms of just average every day people just want shit to work & dont wanna deal with a terminal.
I run my content from a linux machine. The best pc Ive ever built by far. The Shadowfax
good reaction, I remember not being agree with you in some of your other videos for X or Y reason. But in this occasion totally agree with you.
Excellent video!! Thanks for sharing
Linux developers don't care about end users nor daily life productivity, hence most tools are just left as terminal's or bare scripts (iex. web frameworks?).
Oh, they care. But they don't care about making Linux another Windows. If you want Windows, go install Windows.
That's because users don't give a shit about developers to pay them.
@@blackman7437 Most of the major contributors of the bigger and more relevant FOSS don't need to care for money. They're usually employed by a major IT company, or have their own, and make enough to not need to bother. FOSS is a political ideal and a hobby for most.
And web frameworks are used in business applications.
The vast majority just make something that works FOR THEM, and since they are all used to living in the terminal and slap-dashing a Bash script that will only work if specific packages are installed, half the Linux experience is "Compute like it's 1990" and roll 5d20 to see if the command you ran succeeded, while the other half is a small group of devs desperately trying to make the entire thing work as a modern consumer desktop experience.
Dude after this... There is nothing to be added.
I'm not a Linux user. But I have the feeling that it's good for embeded systems or for applications where it's needed to connect it to machines or for systems controls, like for example, satellite centers. And sincerely, I find that to be a really amazing world, where the OS meets physical machines. About for normal desktop use, I still think that is a quite different beast, because desktop has to accomodate a big variety of user cases in a very dinamically change environment where people install all kind of softwares for all kind of purposes like Windows. But that kind of environment that tries to accommodate all users, is not the best to manage single and critical applications. I use Windows and I love it, and if my field was engineering on telecomunications, or coding in edge systems or IoT, I would love to get my hands on Linux. I would like to see more Linux content focused in its strengh areas, but I guess is more difficult content to make, because is where developing meets other engineering fields. But still developers with Linux experience, can give us a glimpse of those areas even if they don't work directly on them. (watching all those videos from Linux youtubers were they only talk about distros and how to install them is, frankly, quite boring and limited and sometimes full of drama coming from the GNU area, but I don't see much content talking, for example, about Ubuntu core and where/how to use it)
Thank you, thank you, thank you! As an on-off Linux user for about 25 years you put words to my thoughts, and I couldn't agree more . Linux as a graphical operating system in 2024 is at best mediocre. As for the terminal: if a wanted to type everything i want done, I would have stayd with DOS.
1) Flatpak solves the problem of distribution fragmentation; 2) DaVinci Resolve works on Linux; 3) terminal is becoming mainstream (ChatGPT). So with that out of the way let's talk about the real reasons for low Linux adoption ...
I tried to be open minded about that guy but if you gotta name call somone for not using terminal then you dont deserve respect and all other opinions go out the door. Thabks Kent for laughs. Needed it.
Linux /is/ designed for the terminal, it's a server focused OS that's usually logged in remotely through ssh and are often run headless with no monitor or mouse connected. Though there are some pretty decent web-based GUI administration interfaces, though they also usually include an ssh terminal. Most linux programs are designed from the base to run from the command line because it allows them to script everything and it's just easier than coding a GUI for every utility. Desktop Linux is just somebody else slapping a GUI on top of it and I wouldn't be surprised if most GUIs are just running terminal commands under the hood. It's kind of like the old days of windows when it ran on top of DOS, but the difference there was they tried to make GUIs for as much as possible, while with desktop linux they're so fragmented they only do it for the most common stuff that's often used and ignore things that they consider simple or rare enough even though their perspective on simple is skewed having the knowledge/experience of developers. Also help files seem to be greatly lacking compared to windows. You're right about them needing to talk to the users who are struggling and figure out how to either eliminate problems or add enough hints and documentation to guide even noobs through the process. Seriously, in the windows 3.1 days I had literally /no/ internet at home as was still able to figure out how to use windows just from the help files. Try to do that on a modern linux distro like Linux Mint, the only included documentation I found was basically the equivalent of one of those "owner manuals" that's like a thin booklet or maybe a thick pamphlet.
Literally everything you just said is borderline useless to 99.99% of all PC users. Ok, cool, you can ssh into a server using just a keyboard... is it 1987? No? Well then not having access to a monitor or mouse is literally not a thing anymore. "Takes time to code a GUI" yeah, putting in effort to make a quality product takes time. I could just make MS paint sprites for my 3D shooter game, but that's fucking lazy and looks terrible. Not having a GUI for your software is fucking lazy. Full stop. No excuse beyond half assing it. not having a GUI is unacceptable, and has been for over 20 years. Stop making excuses for shitty lazy programmers.
The man page isn't a book? How fucing little do you value the time you have left on earth that you want to dedicate days to learning 100s of pages just to use a fuckin app? No one wants that. If your user needs to read a small book to even use your app for daily use, you're a shitty shitty programmer and should stop right now.. Let someone who knows what they're doing make a good quality app.
I'm sorry dude, but the fact you bring up Win 3.1 as some sort of excuse or defense is just laughable. We're not using Win 3.1, or 95, or XP. It's been 30 years. If it was good enough back then, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT acceptable at all in any way shape or form to keep doing it that way today.
The practices you grew up with are dead and gone, and we should never ever have to go back to them.
Thats why i laugh at people stating that mint, zorin, and bunch of other "newbie friendly" distros terminal usage is totally optional....maybe in lalal land, reality is this, linux is the terminal, nothing else. And good luck figuring it out without any programming or scripting skills
@roklaca3138 If it's been 20+ years, and the thousands of developers that have worked on Linux STILL can't figure out how to run their operating system without having to revert back to 1980s tech and methodology, well... that's the kind of utter failure I would imagine a programer would try and keep secret.
When you proudly say "YOU CAN'T USE LINUX WITHOUT THE TERMINAL!" you look like the village idiot standing up in a crowd proudly shouting "I JUST SHIT MY PANTS! :D" no one is impressed. That's embarassing, you shouldn't be proud of that massive of a failure as STILL needing to use the terminal to use any project created after 1998, for fucks sake not an OS in 2024/
(for clarity, I know you're saying havin to use the terminal is also a dumb thing, I'm adding on, not accusing you)
@KentsTechWorld...My guy.. I love your videos, truly do !! But it is GNU/Linux, because Linux is just the Kernel...the GNU part comes from the GNU core utilities that accompany the Kernel like the shell and several other things....hence GNU/Linux. But where you are correct is that most people just call it Linux..
its not lol. even Linus say its not
@@KentsTechWorld Source?
Just wondering, have you ever had the time to read the arch wiki? I use arch.
well I been using arch since it came out lmao. So I have read it more than you can imagine
Well I am a cheap Linux user and don't wanna pay for anything.
Why should I pay for his video. I want things for free :)
But to be honest, for most Linux users the OS is the tool to get things done and they tinker until it works the way they want to.
(why do I have to think about your video with the good tool and the very bad ladder)
But for most computer users they just need a tool and choose the OS that let's them handle the tool.
And don't blame the companies not supporting Linux.
Just don't buy their products..... No TUX no bucks...
If you wanna pay for things that are not "free"
It's important to note that what many people call "Linux" is more accurately referred to as GNU/Linux. Here's why:
Linux itself is just the kernel - the core program that manages hardware and resources.
GNU/Linux is the full operating system, which includes:
-The Linux kernel
-GNU C Library (glibc)
-GNU Core Utilities (coreutils)
-Bash shell
-Many other GNU tools and utilities
The GNU project, started by Richard Stallman, provides most of the essential components that make Linux a usable OS.
Calling it GNU/Linux acknowledges both the Linux kernel and the crucial GNU components.
This distinction matters because it recognizes the philosophical and practical contributions of the GNU project alongside the Linux kernel developers. You can also build a linux kernel based os without GNU.
it's not GNU/Linux
then ubuntu would be Gnome/Gnu/systemD/linux.
don't confuse new people more then you need to. it won't make you look smarter :D
the only people that call it GNU/linux is the FSF people
Even as someone who wants to recognize that effort, literally no one cares except for a tiny community within Linux-users, and bringing it up constantly is actively making people look at Linux-users like they are crazy. After a certain point, a name for one thing can become the reference for a whole group of things, even if its not completely accurate(See Band-Aids and Kool-Aid). Linux is just Linux now, no matter how hard anyone tries, mostly because "GNU/Linux" is a terrible name and the common person will just default to shortening it to whichever half sounds better, and in the end, Linux is the one that will win out every time due to not having any ambiguity when read on whether it's "G.N.U.", "Guhnu", or "Gnu".
What about Alpine Linux?
@@sergeantsapient Alpine uses busybox, an lightweight gnu tools replacement. And by lightweight I mean it is missing a lot of gnu functionality
@@kassd2 my point is it's not GNU/Linux. It's the Linux kernel free from the GNU coreutils.
I don't get the pedantry around GNU/Linux. Yes, Linux wouldn't really exist as it is today without the GNU coreutils but it's still a thing of its own. I'm just going to keep calling it Linux and maybe it'll be worth making the distinction if Hurd starts to see mass adoption.
When I first started in computing I had to use the Terminal, and by that I mean an actual green screen VT100 'Terminal' connected to an IBM mini computer. Then I had to use the UNIX command prompt for a decade.
We don't need to do that now, so stop making Linux stuff that only works with a command line.
It isn't big and it isn't clever It's just old. You are not 'better' because you are writing stupid long and complicated commands at the command line you are clever if you can make a button that does it for you.
Is Linux a product? I'd say it's many products, and I mean by that there are lots and lots of variants, too many forks, and most don't really have support like an enterprise needs. Microsoft has a few versions, but typically people are on 7, 10 or 11. But even Microsoft only supports 10 and 11. Redhat support is expensive. Moving to Linux requires massive re-training, lots of enterprise software is written specifically for Windows, with IIS, .Net, WCF, etc. Enterprises use Linux where the package has been written for Linux, usually one or two specific distros.
i use windows exclusively at work, and we use cmd line all the time lol
so I just had a beer, so that means everyone had one :D there are people still using windows XP for work, so do everyone use Windows XP or are you and where you work just the exception and not the rule??
Level headed views through the bank
I agree 100% with everything you said.
I use arch by the way im fine with it havent used windows for years
my opinion, linux developer are wasting their lifetime on a not so useful thing.
linux ends up becoming another fork for another commercial product, namely IOS, Android, many other tools such as, routers, oscilloscopes, thermal cameras, etc.
literally android is linux.
First and foremost, linux is a kernel not an OS. Any OS using the linux kernel is referred to as "linux", and Android *literally* is using and contributing to the linux kernel.
Mac OS to the contrary does *NOT* use the FreeBSD kernel!! , it uses the *Mach kernel*, and borrows code snippets from FreeBSD, which is entirely different.
BSD is now the second most used os I guess. ;)
@@kolz4ever1980I guess you didn't read, or don't understand. Oh well.
FTW, Playstation 3, Playstation 4 and Playstation 5 are running FreeBSD.
@@kolz4ever1980 Mac is based on BSD, it's not BSD. Android _uses_ the kernel with AOSP. It's only the apps and optimizations on top of that that are vendor-specific. Those two aren't even remotely comparable.
macOS use the FreeBSD driver stack, network stack, sound stack and a few others lol. anting go read the android kernel dev guide, they will tell you what I said. that's where I got it from. Even the Android dev's and owners don't call or say android is Linux, only Linux fanboy's do!
@@KentsTechWorld Andy Rubin developed what is now called "android". Google bought it from him, and re-marketed as "android". It was and still is 100% a linux kernel, and thus is linux, as all OS's using the kernel are called as such.
I can understand the google PR department does not want to use the name "linux" for marketing reasons, but it is linux, as it is using a linux kernel. Google does not have the talent to make an OS from the ground up, and is why their other OS, Chromebook also is a linux.
In terms of Apple, they are using a Mach Kernel, not a FreeBSD kernel. Looking at the code it can been easily been seen.. What is more FreeBSD is *NOT* a kernel, FreeBSD is a full operating system. To the contrary linux is *NOT* an operating system, it is just the kernel. Thus what qualifies as a "FreeBSD" is much more stringent than what qualifies as a "linux".
6:45 - "The terminal is useless outdated piece of sh*t" - lol. If you are advenced user, you need to use it. Even on Windows. I can't imagine using computer without terminal for personal stuff or work. I use it on Linux, I use it on Windows. Using it on server and on desktop. A lot, lots of people are using it and will be using it.
People who say the terminal is outdated are just outing themselves as low skill individuals. They probably just use their Linux machine for gaming and browsing the internet. If they do any software development at all it will be in an environment where more skilled individuals have setup all the infrastructure and tooling for them so they only have to push to GitHub from their IDE
Let them if they want but stop pushing it down peoples throat like linux community does alk the time, all the content i see about linux is always messing with terminals....i do not need that as a gamer.
as one that do all of those things I can say I don't need to use the terminal. but like I said I do cos I like it :D learn to listen
Problem is that Windows Server costs a lot of money to run on server. For point mouse pointer and click operations on Windows Server, licence costs a lot of money. Linux server doesn't cost a lot of money for licences.
linux is only about 10% to 5% cheaper for a license.
The cost of ownership with linux is again about 5% cheaper than Windows.
In a lot of cases the cost of ownership for Linux is greater than Windows (new hardware, more downtime in some software, staff training, hire outsiders(Linux admins are paid more than MS admins or repair people))
This is not new info, companies do this calculation all the time. and if linux could save a company that much, they would all use it!!
@@KentsTechWorld Linux doesnt need a license. you *can* get RHEL, yet most people in enterprise move with distros like Alma.
@@TVPInterpolation The Windows licence comes with the machine. It is not necessary buy one.
@@KentsTechWorld That may be true in Europe. In Africa, that's not the case. It is far cheaper to run Linux servers than Windows servers. Windows licenses are priced in US dollars, which is crazy expensive (Imagine paying 20x the price per license in Euros, and you get an understanding of the cost to local businesses this side). Companies only run Windows server when the applications they need to run, requires it. When they can get away with a Linux server, they do so with a smile.
@@KentsTechWorld
Almost every server is on Linux already. I also count every container as virtualized server because they really have that server code stack top of kernel. So software is put to Linux containers and deployed to infrastructure where of course has Linux top of metal or at least VM to get best efficiency.
In infrastructure level there often has licensing costs but most of time it is not licensing that interest, it is support from tech company.
But developer just deploy the Linux container and it is someone else trouble is to take care that there is Linux. Very often all infrastructure level is outsourced so no need to have own support stuff to take care of servers so developers deploy on some cloud.
Own servers make sense only on larger organizations, or there is just huge amount of capacity required so creating and supporting own infrastructure is cheaper. Linux is so widely used so there isn't likely many company that doesn't run any of the software on Linux servers. Companies just not often maintain infrastructure themselves, that is outsourced.
So I would say that every company is using Linux. That is also the reason high cost of Windows server, it is mostly obsolete so Microsoft squeeze the last money out of it from those who have that kind of dependency.
I am using arch linux and it is a pain in the arse at times lol. I will continue to use it for now, but ideally I will have multiple computers and operating systems like a macbook, a windows desktop and my linux desktop. I can get the same dev environment in mac as linux lol and use windows for like windows specific shit especially gaming or certain windows shit i need that just doesnt work on linux. Atm i have two computer i use side by side one is linux and one is windows and its just awesome
but if i wasnt a developer and just wanted to do gaming and basic shit theres no way i would recommend linux iw ould totally just be happy with spyware and windows
- arch
- gaming
buddy ...
Arch is shovelware that breaks, better get something Debian based like Mint
@@averdadeeumaso4003 "haha, ew Debian. I bet you're as old as your updates" - *proceeds to brick half their system with a rolling release that was barely tested*
they do it for free, and we enjoy the spoils
@@moffichu9150 Arch is best for gaming compared to other distros. There's a reason valve used it. Bleeding edge release model is great when you want the latest stuff. It's not like packages are unmoderated The idea that people "brick half their system" is just severely misinformed.
Using word Linux in this context is wrong, because Linux is only kernel. He is complaining about user space programs like desktop environments, video editing programs etc. And user space programs are not maintained by Linus Torvalds (Linux maintainer, if someone didn't know). Linux desktop is basically lego of hundreds of different programs put together by distro maintainers
When has the guy complained that the hardware companies don't support linux?
He made a factual statement. And the fact is that these pieces of hardware and software not working is why people don't use linux, and the lack of users on linux is why the companies don't support linux.
The only thing you can do is make your own alternative software and hardware as good as possible, which linux does and linux users use, but then the people complain that they are already trained in the software and don't want to relearn and don't want to re-buy hardware - which is absolutely right, but linux users cannot port adobe software (and if they could it would be a crime).
When it comes to fracturization, no we cannot just choose 1 or 2 distros. That is how open source works, that is the same as if you complained that not every story that has robin hood in it is canon to the other ones - the character is public domain, the same as open source, so every idiot can make their own and there is literally no legal means to stop them.
Also Microsoft didn't get as big as they are by changing their product to suit their customers. In the early days when most computers were still sold without a preinstalled operating system they did the biggest bluff in tech history. They called all the PC makers and told them that the software companies were all going to write their software for windows and that they would be loosing out by not shipping it preinstalled, then they called all the software companies and told them PC makers would all be shipping only windows machines from now on so they should make their software for windows or they would miss out on sales. Also they had horrible deals for the PC makers so they either sold only windows machines or none at all. And since enough of the PC makers and software makers bought their bluff the customers now all got started on windows PCs and got used to them. And as a linux user I can tell you, it doesn't matter what OS you are on it will feel weird and wrong to use a different one.
I'm not saying "Linux would have won out otherwise, 100% trust me bro", but just that claiming Microsoft and Windows getting where they are on merit is an overstatement.
I've doing video editing on Debian 12 using Blender. Debian 12 is not fragmented and it works and it is stable. And it also works because I got standardized workflow that I've tested and nothing changes in my system so it works. I've never need to "fix problems". I've never have to, that is why I've always used stable operating systems.
It just don't come anyone hard drive automatically, that requires OS installation that I don't recommend if someone has already working computer. Debian doesn't require terminal after setup is made.
I'm developer and I use terminal a lot. Just faster to use commands (for test, deploy, coverage report, to see output of various tools etc.) than touch mouse. Also back in 90s GUI was much more useless and text mode editors were commonly to write software. Today Bash is actually killer app for developer and that is one reason why Linux based operating systems are preferred for developers.
I also don't care what other people use for video editing. I don't need other people to adapt my video workflow and I actually don't recommend it on many cases because it has some productivity limitations. My workflow is just simple.
So would you prefer debian for a gamer that does not care about command lines?
so you are the benchmark of computing use???
I have tried for almost 30 years and Linux is just a pain to use as a creative than other systems.
Linux based OS's are only preferred for SOME dev's.
most still want the MS tool chain and ecosystem.
@@KentsTechWorld
Let's start from very basics:
1. You always need to know your requirements, then you choose tools, applications and ecosystem that fits it, and check all prerequisites like hardware and dependencies.
In video editing and creative work perspective, I know my requirements as I create content related to my business needs, or in hobby stuff I like to work on visual effects and make cool stuff on my gear. And I know my requirements are very different than they are on other people. I've consulted using Magix Movie Studio to run on Windows 10 because requirement was editing band gig recordings. It was just so much more productive because it had one button audio/video sync.
2. If something is not standard (I mean real standard, like network protocols and similar), there are always dependencies.
And if those dependencies changes, things will break by default if nothing is promised to keep stable. So when there is flow of data like in video editing or audio editing, the workflow is tested and locked so things don't break. I do like Debian for that reason, because every release is kept stable 5 year with minimal changes so it fits to building workflows top of it and allows 3rd party applications installed.
That Magix + Windows was of course trade off compared to my Debian setup, because Debian is stable platform compared to Windows where you got changes in platform during Windows version upgrades, like Windows 10 21H2 to Windows 10 22H2. Those kind of changes affect on low level stuff so there are risk that something happens on example in video codecs or drivers. And risks were indeed realized on that Magix + Windows where multi monitor setup was fucked up on version upgrade and that required fixing.
3. Don't expect people to install operating system. Based on Microsoft research, 90% of consumers will use everything on defaults where they can.
Sure there are 10% who like to change something, like browser or music player. Obviously when there is setup made for work or some serious stuff, there can be made setup for that purpose. There you can find example software developers.
---
And you are very wrong about MS tool chain and ecosystem. Linux is *defacto* in datacenters. Almost everyone write code using Linux containers that run on Amazon/Google/Microsoft and others, or then it can run self hosted. Windows servers are rare and they are only found on large organizations where every client is Windows so they can run self hosted stuff (AD, fileserver etc.) on Microsoft ecosystem. Small companies / startups run stuff in cloud and hell no they are not buying $1000 licenses of Windows server.
And because Linux has that defacto status, of course developers use Linux based OS. It is just convenient to have similar system on locally than it is on the server.
There is also other standard: Almost every frontend is written to run in browser if possible. Browser is today standard way to run UI. Almost every finance, project management CMS, CRM, WMS, ERP etc. that businesses use are used with browser. So there is very little need to Windows in development. That is just foolish misconception.
There are of course developers using Windows and Mac OS (like those who make native code to their ecosystems) and many developer on Windows uses Linux on WSL.
Microsoft tools are however very common, Typescript and Visual Studio Code are hugely popular. ASP.NET is also used and there you can found Windows developers.
@@KentsTechWorld Yes, for the love of all that is holy, USE WINDOWS. Linux will not become another Windows, and that is a good thing. We need more choices in computing, not less. I don't want a blue coloured Windows and a red coloured Windows-clone. I use Linux to get away from the crappy Windows architecture and interfaces.
@@roklaca3138
It really depend on games what platforms are options. 100% free from command line or editing some text files/weird configuration is to use Playstation, Nintendo, Xbox, Android, iOS, and Windows in S-Mode.
So I'm not recommending anything. If current one works, no need to change.
LOL!! Linux is literally FOR people to figure out how to work it. It's what we want in an OS for us devs. It makes you better. Personally I use both. Also, proprietary software that caters to Microsoft...
again lmao. a OS don't make you better.
and no one want to pay you to tinker, they pay you to work lmao
@@KentsTechWorldBeing a bit pedantic, that still depends on what you mean by “tinker”. We do get paid for tinkering with products and tools we think will benefit the company, and we have to in order to build a business case for the company adopting it or buying a license.
You got my like and sub because of your tangant about why you are chubby!
😂 no fucks given 😂
99 percent of people will not and should not be using the terminal. distros have advanced far beyond that. do i use the terminal? I use it to connect to servers that i work on with the term. its totally deprecated for self system management, its totally outdated. when i was a trainer i used to laugh at "Terminal snobs" because in real life, we use the most efficient method to achieve the goal.
The terminal is the most efficient tool
But it's nice to have a gui, when i am too tired to think
"there is no need for 10k distributions"
There is. It lets user to choose what they want to have by default without need to go full LFS or arch way. It simplifies entry and saves much time on reinstalls.
"Standard desktop environment"
Noooo... That would end up (and somewhat is) being gnome which is absolute crap and way worse than what windows have.
I don't think there needs to be more than 1 distribution. What there needs to be is the ability to fork. Multiple distributions is just an effect of the foundational principles of libre software. If Linux based OSes were no longer something that I could fork and create a new distribution on a whim, it's lost all of its appeal since it's not libre software.
He says some good points but I strongly disagree with the idea that Linux is a product. Some Linux distros are a product, but others are simply not. I know that the definition has been twisted such that free services are now products since they find something else to sell, but the reason a product is a product is that the goal is to get as many people as possible to want it. That is not the goal for all of Linux. Maybe the developers want it for some personal reasons, but there is no financial pressure.
It works to say that Ubuntu is failing when it cannot support every hardware configuration it markets itself to because Ubuntu is a product. Canonical wants people to use Ubuntu as an avenue of making money from their support services. Here, this is Canonical 's fault.
As soon as you remove the requirement that lots of everyday users must want to use your distro, it immediately stops being your problem. And I do think that's a healthy attitude that some distributions have.
It is not Linux's fault. It is for example Ubuntu's fault, because only distros like Ubuntu ought to actually care.
linux is a product, everything is. if you make something and someone use it, then you made a product.
The definition of a product is an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale. When I put my art on the internet I don't care if anyone looks at it or downloads it. I know some people have, and a few had even purchased prints from me. My art is not a product, those prints were. Linux is not a product, RHEL and Ubuntu are.
Kent, dude, Linux is not for you. The BSDs are not for you. You sound like a Windows user, and you should use Windows. It has a nice GUI with lots of fun spyware, perfect for the average person. And to top it off, it's not an outdated piece of sh!t, as you like to say. It requires the latest and greatest hardware, because it is just so absolutely cutting edge. It is like your digital parent, that knows what you need, when you need it, even if you don't know you need it. Stick to Windows. It is the perfect OS for you.
@@anonymousalexander6005 Excellent! Please continue using Windows. It's the absolute best option for you.
Also, I don't care about technical sales terms like "ABI stable". I remember a Linux server running for two years before it was restarted in the mid 2000's, whereas Windows Server 2013 had to be restarted once a week to prevent performance degradation. Our experiences are not the same.
@@anonymousalexander6005 "features", lmao, ok.
I really don't get the hate boner people get for such topics. I hate Windows, but I'm not going to rant for people not to use it. It's the same reason I'm not going to tell people to use some Colemak variant or sell their car or buy a motorcycle or whatever. People approach this with such insane attitude, and most times, you can tell they don't know what they're talking about.
FYI you do know I been using linux for over 26+ years right lmao.
I could teach you a lot about linux if you want to lmao.
I used linux distress that had no pkg managers and so on.
but hey what do I know lmao
@@KentsTechWorld You wasted 26 years on Linux, and only now realized that Windows is your one true love? That's a really sad tale, my dude. Better late than never, as they say.
The problem with the Linux community not providing what you ask is not because of their lack of will or effort to do it, but active stifling of such efforts by those who consider Linux a threat to their business model.
Microsoft invented dev containers (for Linux). To create deterministic development environmentd.
Not sure what they are talking here.
On Linux you don't waste time on fixing the environment.
Because we have mecanism to fix It automatically on every startup.
Please don't spread false information.
Linux is just better and thats why on Windows you have to use WSL and on Mac you use docker for Mac.
Because Linux is the only OS that can create auto-fixable dev environments.
you all are to funny lol.
if you think that's why windows has WSL you are so wrong lol.
@@KentsTechWorld try to deploy a web using Windows containers and Microsoft IIS.
WSL was made because its is easy to deploy webs on Linux.
Microsoft reimplemented dotnet ecosystem to be run on Linux and docker containers and WSL to develop on top on that.
Yeah, It could be seem wrong to say Linux is better but the statement is baked by multimillon decision and multi-year efforts.
Yeah, Linux is better and thats why WSL do exist.
Problem with GUI is, that could be slow. For Linux keyboardist typing commands is faster interaction, than finding commands in GUI. And in GUI you cannot add parameters for operation.
GUIs still win on desktop, hence the popularity of other OSes
cli needs prerequisite knowledge, gui doesn't. you can navigate it on any system with zero knowledge. terminal is good if you want to make complex replicatable scripts. let's say for tech support - it's easier to provide the user with a bunch of commands to copy and paste, but if you want the user to find their own solutions then there should be gui.
@@roklaca3138 No, that's not it. If you'd pre-install Linux on laptops and pre-build computers, you'd get a bigger market share for it. OSX wouldn't have any market share if a mac came with the choice of OS at buy time. For most people a smartphone is the perfect computer. Helps to organize your life, keep up on news, allows you to communicate, and, if you're a masochist, allows you to watch stuff. For most people smartphone + smart TV is the combination of device they actually need, a PC is simply above their usage requirements.
Most users needing to interact with any form of computing simply aren't power users, they want to use 1% of the feature set available, if even that, and that has to work and be somewhat intuitive to follow along. They don't actually care about the OS or its features.
If your use case is go on the internet, read some articles, stream some movies, read some mail, do some basic office work, which would roughly 2/3 of users, then pretty much every OS works exactly the same for you. Even differing software will look and feel same-ish, simply because most GUIs are build with the end-user in mind. You can use Windows, OSX, or one of the many Linux distros that focus on usability - like Debian, Mint, pop etc. You'll be able to use any of them just following along the GUI and they will work for you all the same. And I bet you, if Mint/Ubuntu/Debian would come preinstalled on pre-builds and laptops, people would just roll with it because it works.
If your use-case contains gaming, OSX is not a viable option and the Linux distros get an asterisk, since some games still don't work, but the absolute majority of your steam library will work out of box.
If your gaming routine contains classics/older titles that need Vista or older, Linux is actually the better choice. Quite a few classics out that won't work on Win 11 anymore, but do on Linux. The wine/proton solution has the positive quirk that it isn't dependent on the version of Windows, so backwards compatibility is actually better, at least in my experience.
If your use-case contains creative work OSX is your best bet, followed by Windows, then, far off Linux, though, that will likely change in the next 5 years. There's already professional studios turning away from Adobe, simply because they try stunts like "We have non-exclusive copyrights to use, modify, sell anything you upload into the cloud. Also, by default, we send everything into our cloud to keep it safe." There's already an array of companies and professionals going for alternate software solutions.
If your use-case contains anything professional where the computer isn't just the tool for it, but also the recipient of your work (i. e. programming, network administration, actual computing work), you'll be using console or terminal regardless of your OS, since usually you have more features and functions available in the terminal environment than in a GUI, if there's a GUI for the software you need. At that point, you'll likely be more happy with Linux than any of the others, simply because OSX and Windows will actively try to get into your way.
@@EasyGameEh "cli needs prerequisite knowledge, gui doesn't." That's plainly wrong, both need prior knowledge. There's no meaningful difference in typing "firefox" or clicking its symbol to open it. If you don't understand what you want to do and which software does it, you'll not succeed with either. If you know "I want to open firefox" then you'll manage with both.
So your argument is, we should all just give up and go home since linux will never be good enough for X,Y and Z?
nope!
work instead of demanding!!
work with other companies instead of fighting them!!
make it easier for companies to support Linux!
All i said in the video if you watched it or listened ;)
@@KentsTechWorld Ok, did I miss a memo? Where are the Linux people that are demanding something from others? Where are the Linux people fighting with other companies? Make it easier for companies to support Linux??? You know you can just use a language that can cross compile to different operating systems, right? Companies don't support Linux because it is more work, and they choose the path of least resistance (where the largest number of users are).
as a Linux user, I demand to know what Bill Gates was doing at Little Saint James island
if I can recall, probably nothing good. Dude has a microsoft
@@KentsTechWorld And if said companies are basically arseholes that says "Unless you have some kind of leverage, why the f- should we help you?"
Like, say... Nvidia. Adobe. Microsoft (atleast pre-Nadela).
I am all for cooperating with companies but companies do not want to cooperate unless it profits them in the short term.
Long term everyone benefits more on an open ecosystem. Short term, the biggest players lose big time.
You're both wrong Linux is just the kernel ...stop making stupid videos to have clicks...that because of your kind that I went back to using W$ for my personnal station
another clueless fool lmao.
you really think I don't know what linux is lmao.
and you don't understand the thing called a social construct around words??
using Linux as a broad term, makes it easier for most people to understand as most people now a day use the term linux to describe a distro or remake.
Now we on this fun train. you do know that the ubuntu kernel is not linux but a linux compatible kernel right??