The key word is: PC. Personal computer. Stuff that a human work on locally with a nice fancy user-friendly GUI and that might set him back at most a week if he had to replace it (well, the might be other losses in productivity while client-side software is being replaced).

Now, I`m thinking about the servers that power the internet and a lot of the other 'automated' systems we rely on, not to forget embedded systems (got a network switch? Odds are very good its running on Linux).

Yes most of the servers running run Linux, but there are a lot of servers running Windows as well.

MicroSoft with their Azure servers is growing.

MicroSoft's Azure servers earned MicroSoft like $1+ billion dollars (USD) in 2016.

MicroSoft is going to be the dominating Windows Operating System (OS) developer for the PC versions of video games on PC for the next twenty years.

MicroSoft will not fall that fast.

MicroSoft so far from 2016 to 2017 has earned like $7+ billion dollars (USD).

MicroSoft at the moment is unstoppable.

Your delusional if you think MicroSoft will fall in the next twenty years.

However you may feel about it, Linux powers the stock market (and Google :P), so I rest my case here.

In terms of future, Linux has the most winning model for an OS: It's free, it's open, it's based on a world-wide collaborating effort.

Microsoft is a large company, but it is one company. The volume of professionals (and academics) looking at the internals of the Linux kernel (and it's extended ecosystem) and ensuring its quality is far greater.

And whenever people need to adapt an OS to their needs, they'll turn to Linux (or a Unix variant). Mac OS did it and so did Android. They won't be able to adapt Windows, they won't have the rights to do so.

You know. I don't even know why we switched subjects from PC versions of video games to Linux running the internet and the stock market and whatever else.

So lets go back to the PC versions of video games.

MicroSoft will remain dominant with the Windows desktop market.

End of discussion.

Just saying, don't be too smug about dismissing Linux as insignificant because it is a minor player in one segment of the market. It (or something descended from it) will outlive Windows.

Talk to me in 2030 then.

If I'll still be alive by then.

We most likely won't be communicating by then (if nothing else, GOG's fortune may or may not be that good).

Just try to remember when Microsoft dies (as all companies eventually do and with it, all future Windows support) and there are still plenty of Linux (or Linuxish) systems kicking around that some nameless face on the internet told you so.

If Microsoft pulls this shit, it will probably backfire on them.

Maybe so. I'm just trying to understand the "Linux is harder for the average user" argument. Some things I recall being said:

1. "Linux is hard(er) to install."

I have had exactly the opposite experience. When I e.g. tried to reinstall Windows 8 and Windows 7 on two PCs (their installations had become corrupted), it was quite hard to figure out how to reinstall the system, where to get the correct installation media, what version of Windows you are eligible, where is the CD key etc. (No, system refresh ddn't work in those cases, I needed to reinstall both from a clean table.)

I had quite a lot of problems especially with the Windows 7 re-installation as Microsoft didn't allow me to download the Win7 installation media from their servers (saying that it wasn't meant for PCs which came preloaded with Windows, I should get the installation media from the PC vendor instead (who would charge extra for it, or maybe the vendor doesn't even exist anymore)). In the end I was able to find the installation media from an unofficial source and install&authenticate it with the legit product key, but then the problem arise that I could find the installation media only for the English language version (not Finnish), and since the produch key was for the Home version, Microsoft didn't allow me to change the system language. After lots of googling, I found a complicated third-party solution to change the system language to Finnish.

Compared to that, installing Linux has been much much easier and straightforward. Download the ISO, either burn it to a DVD or put to an USB drive, and install. You don't have to care what version of Linux you are "eligible" (Home, Pro, Single Language, whatever), you don't have to care about authenticating it online or find your "CD key" hidden in the system, you don't receive "Ooops! Seems your copy of Windows was preloaded to your PC, so you are not allowed to download the installation media from Microsoft, please contact your PC vendor instead." type of messages, your version is not gimped (like for changing the system language!) just because you have a "Home" and not a "Pro" version of it, etc. etc. etc.

Really, I can't understand how anyone could claim installing Windows on a PC is easier than Linux.

2. "It is confusing that there are several desktop environments to choose from (Gnome, KDE, XFCE etc...)."

First of all, most of them are quite similar. Sure the "start menu" may be differently grouped in e.g. Mint Cinnamon than Mint XFCE, but it doesn't take that long to figure out where is what, even if you use a different desktop environment. The only exception to that rule was that Ubuntu "touch-friendly" UI, the very reason I switched from Ubuntu to Mint.

Secondly, come on, on the Windows world the user-interface changes are far far more drastic! Remember how lost people were trying to figure out the Windows 8 Metro interface, after Windows 7? It was completely different, you had to re-learn your Windows completely, from the ground up. They also changed how e.g. menu items are grouped (which caused lots of problems to e.g. many GOG games, when you had a long list of game manual shortcuts, with no idea to which game they belonged, just because Windows 8/8.1/10 removed the ability to put subfolders into the menus).

It has changed further from Windows 8.1 to 10, in my opinion for the better though. The desktop environment changes from XP to Vista/7 were also quite big. Considering how much you have to re-learn using of Windows with new versions of Windows, I find it funny Windows users would complain about the minor differences between different Linux desktop environments. Get a grip, people. With Windows you have had to re-learn the UI all over again lots of times already.

3. Generally speaking, what does a common user do with their PC? Use the browser to use online services, run some word processors or email clients etc.? None of that is harder on Linux, Firefox or Thunderbird works the very same on Linux as it does in Windows. My wife can do her online banking just as easily on Linux Mint, as she can on Windows 7. She logs into the computer, double-clicks on the Firefox icon, and heads to the online bank. Similarly when I want to check my emails (I have several different email accounts, e.g. some are for more professional use and others more like throwaway accounts for registration for web pages etc.), I don't see any difference when using Thunderbird for that in Windows or Linux.

The only thing is if you need some specific Windows application, of course. For instance, since we use Microsoft Office at our work for everyhing, yeah it is a valid reason for me to use Windows on my work laptop, just so that i can use MS Office products and not care about possible incompatibilities when trying to use Libre Office for the same documents. (Unless there is MS Office for Linux?)

Also, if I e.g. told my wife to find and install some application like Firefox, I am sure it is much easier for her in Linux than in e.g. Windows 7. In Windows she needs to find her way to the Firefox homepages, download the correct installer there and install it... while on Linux she simply goes to the central software manager, searches for "firefox" and clicks on the install button. (Maybe this is as easy in Windows 10, in case Firefox can be found directly in Windows Store? Or is Windows Store restricted only to "modern UI" applications, not legacy desktop applications?)

4. "Lack of driver support."

Now this is most probably a valid reason I can agree with, at least with new hardware. Then again, if I think of e.g. my wife as a "common user", she would be just as lost trying to figure out drivers for Windows as for Linux. She expects me to take care of it, and have a working system for use.

Also to me it appears that quite often support for older hardware is better in Linux. See e.g. the recent discussion in this forum about trying to find a printer with good Windows 10 driver support. When I've tried to install a new Windows on some very old PC, I quite often lack drivers for many pieces of hardware, sometimes even sound cards etc., while Linux quite often supports them natively even in the latest Linux versions. So I might even go as far as claim that for older hardware, driver support is many times better in Linux, than in Windows. (And for new hardware it is vice versa.)


Disclaimer: 90% of the time I use Windows, so for me "defending" Linux is not about not using, or wanting to use, Windows. I just feel many of the complaints from the "I tried Linux once in the 90s" crowd about how hard Linux is supposed to be for the common user are just exaggerated or plain wrong,

Probably not in only 3 years, that's a very short space of time. 10, 15, 20+ years, maybe.

And this is a big part of why growth of Linux is so difficult. There's a reason why Microsoft heavily incentivise using Windows at educational institutions, to the point that they're willing to let schools have their software for free, or almost free. Most people grow up being taught nothing else; Windows is forced on them while they can only learn about alternatives if they take the initiative to do so themselves. And by that point they're likely already heavily shackled to the Windows ecosystem by path dependence and lock-in.

IMO schools should be required to teach with Windows, Mac and Linux as well as software from a number of different vendors. I'm sure it helps that they can get Microsoft to modify/customise it according to their requirements, and even get limited access to the source code. Plus, the government & military are *far* from the best examples of wise spending/procurement. NASA uses a mix of systems and for various reasons (e.g. can't move away from XP for some things because of no driver/software support for very expensive specialist & proprietary hardware on newer versions of Windows), and for life critical and/or customised systems they use Linux. Windows XP has long been EOL and they're still staying away from Windows 10. The Chinese government even went as far as banning Windows 10 from their systems and networks, although Microsoft has since made a special version for them. Not really a surprise when alternatives are very rarely offered and never taught in schools (aside from Mac occasionally), lots of FUD spread around about usability of alternatives, etc.

Probably not, but a lot can change in that time. 20 years ago would you have thought Lehman Brothers would crash & burn?

What I meant by that is that the average user is used to Windows, so anything that moves away from they are used to is comparatively less user-friendly.

At this point, I also think that Linux is more pro-user than Windows (more enablement in controling your machine, more choice, less DRM), but this is a subtle distinction for most users.

Yeah, I agree. Unless you're a big AAA gamer or a professional dependent on specific commercial software (ex: Photoshop), there is not real practical reason to use Windows over Linux nowadays.

It's really about what people are used to.

I think I mentioned it before in those forums, but I have a friend who couldn't re-install his Windows, because he either miscarded or was never given his Windows Key (DRM).

After determining that he wasn't a big gamer and wasn't dependent on specific commercial Windows-only software, I installed Ubuntu on his machine.

After about a week, he went to Best Buy and forked over 100$ for a copy of Windows 10, because things like occasionally having to input your password when crossing security boundaries (it's very ironic that he complained about that given that his original Windows partition got messed up by malware) or how different Unity was from the Windows GUI annoyed him (and yes, I told him we could try alternatives if Unity annoyed him too much, but I don't think he fully grasped the concept of being able to chose your GUI).

It's really about that emotional place of comfort that comes with the familiar.

Speaking of Linux, I tried various more distros to see if I can get head to heat with my Nvidia Optimus laptop. Majaro and Mint are the two I remember after being stuck on Puppy for a while (thanks again to adamhm for helping me get Optimus to work there, even if by little), and yet I couldn't even get Optimus to work properly. Meanwhile, Optimus supported on Windows. While this doesn't make the installation of the base software any easier or harder, it does make it harder for me as Nvidia actually has a good solution for it on Windows but not on Linux.

----

Anyways, their 'worst fears' already materialized long ago in the form of Windows RT. So frightening that it died off by itself. Actually, Windows 10 S, according to what I heard, is not so much different than Chromebook which has existed in a while. That is its market.

I can safely say that Win32 applications are here to stay. To kill that is to kill what makes Windows Windows, in its ability to develop for and keep old programs and games work for as much as humanly possible. To do that is Microsoft committing its own suicide. Not to mention that this doesn't click as much as it should be when Microsoft's Office and Visual Studio, so far, are still developed and distributed outside the Windows Store, VS2017 included, and continually updated. If Microsoft was going towards killing Win32 apps, it had millions of chances to do it already.

To be honest, I don't see much of the point in the Windows 10 S, or Chromebooks. Maybe it's an option for laptop vendors to offer a cheaper version of their lappy with Windows, given that you can switch to Windows 10 Pro with just $50? Why not just offer Windows 10 Pro or Home right away, since you can already have them on the same devices that have Windows 10 S? That's another part that doesn't click with me as well. But to expect Microsoft to trash Windows 10 Home or Pro and Win32 apps with it is a bit stretching it too far considering that it's a lifeblood for them which also enables another business (primarily Office).

Sensationalist titles.
They're intended as a Chromebook, so more like a tablet with keyboard.
If you were not interested in Chromebooks, you probably won't be interested in these.
Also, there are better options that run Windows 10 Home/Pro. This is just for MS fanboys.

They can't outright kill Win32 sure, that would be bad business and people would never leave older versions of Windows or would try to switch to something else. What they can do is kill Win32 by weaning people off of them without actually killing Win32 applications... If they say restrict them to PRO and above and introduce a version of windows to say kids like Windows 10 S is doing, then they can basically teach kids to live in a non-Win32 ecosystem and teach them to find what they need in the MS approved store. Potentially the way in which the majority of people using Windows get applications could be vastly different in a few years.

Considering how easy it is to convert a Win32 app for the Windows Store, many non-gaming devs will now probably see it as a necessity to reach the education market to go ahead and do so where up until now they have felt no real need too because anyone could go online and just get the good old exe file. Even if you can upgrade, most people probably won't unless they really need to use something they can't find in the store. But for most Office (which is being added to the Windows 10 Store) and a web browser is probably enough to get by.

Sure hardcore gamers will just use the PRO version, but casual gamers? Non-techie gamers? Xbox Players? People who just the most basic of things like a web browser? Gaming devs and non-gaming devs will slowly begin to have no choice but to support these people if something like Windows 10 S is pushed outside of the education sector and then targeted to lower budget home users.

Hell even Scorpio will use UWP and the Windows 10 Core as a default from what I read. So basically any dev creating a game for Scorpio may not even worry about making a Win32 version because the UWP version will automatically work on both PC/Xbox with very minimal extra work. So if enough developers decide the work of porting to win32 isn't worth it, even if PC gamers hate the Windows 10 store, they will use it reluctantly to get the games the want.

Win32 may exist for some time for sure, but slowly phasing it out is a real possibility and if MS succeeds with the education market you better believe they will begin to target the home market as by that time their Store may be looking a whole lot more useful due to devs finally giving in and porting their applications.

In Microsoft's view they have a lot more to gain in the long run by having control over access between devs and users. They can finally get a piece of that pie by charging a small cut like Valve and GOG do now for gaming.