[digi_owl]

Here we go again, claiming that the reason Linux is not on the consumer desktop is technical. Nope, it is squarely economical (and quite a bit political). when the OEM contract with Microsoft makes it expensive to do non-Windows PCs, the OEM opts not to.

Ever since KDE 2.x Linux has been just as good as Windows from a technical standpoint (and likely easier to fix once the inevitable error comes up, as there are few to none opaque binaries involved).

Ease of use is a smokescreen, as there is no "tabula rasa" users running around any longer.

[bertiewhykovich]

I used Linux on the desktop for years. I ultimately switched to Macintosh because I was sick of battling my operating system to fulfill basic consumer needs. To be fair, this was five years ago, and I'm sure that Linux has made usability strides since then. But it's hard for me to believe that the ethos of Linux -- a platform by developers, for developers, that is additionally hindered by the FOSS orthodoxy of certain camps -- has been fundamentally altered in that time.

[sgt101]

This - I loved it, but I couldn't afford the random time sinks doing things like making my notebook talk to a projector or give me a keyboard mapping that worked for every key.

[Retra]

Source code is just as opaque as a binary for the overwhelming majority of people. Actually, if you tell someone to consult the source code, they'll probably see it as far more opaque than a binary.

[audleman]

Are you saying Linux is the same as Windows? Can I play Overwatch on my Linux home desktop?

[monocasa]

> it is squarely economical (and quite a bit political)