Magmarock: When asking most people why they don’t use Linux the most common answer is that they just can’t be bothered with it. I’m not sure where this geeks for geeks things is coming from.
It has been the other way around at the last 3 places I worked, the devs (who predominantly used Linux and Mac) couldn't be bothered supporting Windows machines for development.
95% of the app coverage either targeted the browser, mobile or a Linux backend.
Magmarock: What is this argument based on? One of the most used compilers is visual studio C++.
Furthermore most development suits such as Autodesk game engines and other assorted are made for Windows. And on top of that if you’re programmer working on a project it’s Windows that you’ll be using to test it.
It's practical reality. Windows dominates the professional desktop and gaming, because that is where Windows is.
The bulk of the server market is in Linux and so are most devices (at the very least, they use a Unix derivative, the Playstation uses FreeBSD for example).
When a device makers (and more generally devs) can pick any OS they want, they tend to go for the ones they can fully control and ideally, that is free as well,
Magmarock: So? This is a problem why?
Well, Visual Studio was like 300$ per license and Windows server was 1000$ per server last time I checked a couple of years back. Combined with the fact that Python and Apache at the time ran way better on Linux than on Windows, I saw the writing on the wall. That was back in 2009.
I was working on Windows before that btw so I kinda saw both sides of the fence. It was actually significant work for me to re-learn everything in Linux. I had a lot of career incentives to do so.
Magmarock: This right here is most likely the reason no one wants to use Linux. In the world of business as well as everyday life. Consistency in your tools is very important.
Except that the bulk of the Silicon Valley, the stock market, most of the cloud providers except Azure run on some Unix derivative (mostly Linux).
My previous company was doing digital signatures for banks, insurrances companies, the US military and various branches of the US government and they ran on Linux.
My current employer is poised to become the world leader in homecare management and they use Linux too.
Don't get me wrong, the secretaries probably use Windows or Mac, but the heavy-duty stuff (the machines that run 24/7 and actually run the application the end-users use) gets done on Linux.
Magmarock: If you think Debain or anything based on it can do 80% of what Windows can do then you mustn't be aware of what computers are capable of. Android which is based on Linux but doesn’t count as s distro is far more capable then anything on Distro watch but still no where near as capable as Windows; and Android shows us what Linux would be like if and when it’s potential is reached.
Actually, it's the other way around. Microsoft is now scrambling to be more and more Linux compatible, because they are seeing the writing on the wall (with the desktop end-user space shrinking and the Unix family dominating all the other spaces).
Their SQL database now runs on Linux, they are adding a Linux compatibility layer in their OS (so that users can run bash and the like) and they are now supporting Docker (a tool that has a lot of dependencies on facilities provided by the Linux kernel). They are way behind of course and it doesn't compare to a real Linux machine.
Magmarock: It really hasn’t though. This is a common case of comparing an entire kernel familay to a single desktop OS. Linux is the kernel and Ubuntu is the OS. Windows is the OS but NT is the kernel. NT is not just used in Windows. It it is used and customised for specialised machines and circumstances. Some business will commission Microsoft to modify the kernel for them while others will use SKD.
Most of the Linux distros are pretty compatible. For example, things that run in Debian will tend to run in Ubuntu with little or no modifications (usually none).
Even between distros that are not closely related like Debian and Centos, 90% of the stuff will be interchangeable. The main difference will be how you install your tools.
Magmarock: People have been saying Linux is the future for years now and frankly never go into details as to what that even means. Does it mean that the kernel is the future? If the latest update of Windows integrated Linux code into it’s NT kernel does that count as being part of the envisioned Linux future?
Open-source closed-source. these are just methods of software production, it’s the results and not the methods that truly matter.
It's there already, some Unix derivative (mostly Linux) is dominating all corners of the market except the desktop.