It's abundantly clear what I mean.

You are focusing on the arguer's personal traits and characteristics - are they obtuse, biased, ignorant etc.

That has no place in a discussion, none, zero, zip, nada. Unless you want to make your position infinitely weaker, you just don't start attacking the arguer just because they are presenting a decent argument.

That, mate, is not arguing in good faith. This is called projection - you are the one guilty of these things, but you project them on your imaginary opponent, nay, nemesis, to deflect from yourself. 'No, you!' 'No you said that' 'I'm innocent, it's you, no you!' As I said, projection.

And more strawmen - nobody even argued that Linux could run anything and everything flawlessly.

I stopped counting how many logical fallacies you've committed, which is actually besides the point - who cares at the end of the day, it's not some ping pong tournament where you count the score, and declare the winner at the end.

This isn't a match nor competition - what it should be is a civil discussion between random internet people about a topic. Preferably without getting personal and/or using ad hominem. Did I call you 'hostile' 'biased' 'obtuse' 'insulting' and 'ignorant'? Nope. I think you'll find that was not me.

And yes, these are things you called me *after* you apologised that time, the list is far more extensive if we go back...

It was nice of you to apologise that time, I have to say I didn't expect it at all actually, even if it was the only thing left to do at that point. But you just continued in your ways unfortunately yet again.

I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks, eh? Clearly I'm really obsessed with my operating system. I dream about it at night, and am willing to sacrifice my life taking down those god damn Windows and Mac users. That's how obsessed and hateful I am. /s (if even needed)

By the way, I could care less about you not realising how good of an OS Linux is for desktop users in 2020 - I just hate misinformation, overgeneralisations, stereotyping and unfounded claims based on dubious 'facts' that turn out to be falsely made assumptions.

Tick each box that has applied to you in this thread, will you?

I took a look at those first two before responding yesterday and I would have added to them if I could.

I don't think there's much to be said on that third one than hasn't already been said. There's no Linux-specific forum on GOG. That being said, I find prefixing thread titles for non-windows questions really helps find your target audience.

Example
[Linux][Wine] Titan Quest won't start

Unfortunately in this case, I don't own a copy of Civ IV, so there's no useful testing to be done on my end. But if you can provide some Wine logs here from your crash/error scenarios, I'll give 'em a look and see what we see.

In any case, the intent of my initial response was to provide you with additional resources, point you in a direction where more technical help is available, and maybe provide a bit of insight into the usual troubleshooting process.


It's very possible you will never receive a reply. When someone spends a good chunk of their time helping the community at large there's often an assumption that they have time to reply to individual questions, and that's not always the case.

Maybe adamhm is busy, or tired, or just on here to relax a bit, or simply doesn't care enough to answer your question. None of those would be inexcusable, or in any way diminish the contributions adamhm has already made to your cause by creating that Civ IV wrapper script and posting the necessary winetricks to perform the install yourself.

I'm pretty sure you don't want him calling you up at 3 AM to help with car repair... So give him a break ;)

You've been getting some flak here for coming across as entitled, but I think the real issue is just that you haven't provided the resources anyone needs to help you in any of your posts, and you're getting frustrated at the lack of response.

Save for GOG staff, nobody has to be here, and they don't have to cater to anyone when they are. Your frustration won't change that. So post your logs (preferably in the original post and link back to them here) and make it easy on those that can and want to help.

Include the following in your posts, and I think you'll find the community's a lot more helpful.

• What version of Linux are you running?
• What build and version of Wine are you running?
• What version of Civ IV did you install? (might want to provide an MD5 checksum here too)
• Which winetricks did you install? (I assume you used the ones adamhm posted, but good to verify)
• Does the game start?
• If it starts, what graphical glitches or missing features are most apparent?
• What error messages have you received?

Screenshots of specific problems often provide useful clues too.

P.S. -- If you do end up solving the issue, write a tutorial post to give something back :)

First off thanks for going to the trouble of replying so much/so in depth....it is appreciated and I will respond in kind:

This provides less of a hurdle for those wanting to make the change over to a new OS, but there are so many distros/flavors of Linux that some would even find searching through them all to find the "right" one for their needs/tastes to be too daunting even for them.

Also then they'd need to make sure their current HW was compatible and make sure they knew how to change over without losing data or mucking anything up(while installing Linux or using it).

For those who are used to doing such modding/tweaking it'd be easier, YES, but most here likely just want to install their games/files and move on(when installing games and apps, etc). They are the types for whom even editing a dosbox config file or adding mods to games is a challenge sometimes.

I mean look at how PCs/tech/apps/etc are made more and more to be as simple to use as possible....this is for the majority out there who just want a "quick setup and play" solution for everything. People are slowly becoming more like the movie idiocracy(not knowing how to do stuff without being told how to do stuff, wanting simpler things, etc), scarily enough.

You still need to get the flavor of Linux installed and make sure you';ve got a handle on it to know what you're doing so you can have the basics mastered, and again....not all games are that simple to run on Linux....some need a bit more "work" and "emulators"/emulators to get running, and some few(afaik) won't run at all.

Some(like me) "defend" it because it "just works" and does what we need it to, and we're used to it....not always out of blind loyalty but because it's the right tool for the job and we don't see the need to switch...same as some Linux users, i'd expect.

No, I got what you meant and agreed.....hence the "yup". :)

They kinda HAVE to ship the systems with a pre-installed OS so people can use the new PCs right out of the box(people like ease of use these days and it is valued highly by many), and seeing as many are more used to windows that it what is installed on them. No one says one cannot install a new OS over that.

Also in order to ship windows with said new PCs the PC builders have to pay MS for said OS copies(well for older versions...dunno if MS charged them to ship Win10), and those PC makers have to shift some of that cost to whomever buys those PCs. It's the same with most premade stuff with extra options/stuff added in at the factory/etc, people buying said items indirectly have to pay for whatever stuff was added to that item...even if they don't want some of it and won't use some of it.

Of course, one can have a custom shop make a custom PC without windows right out of the gate...that is an option and helps one avoid paying for things(including OSs) one doesn't want. :)

Agreed, but no one(makers/sellers/etc) should be forced or coerced/coaxed to do so.


1. You originally worded it as if they should be forced(students/universities) to provide and use ONLY Linux...so you can see why some might've been confused by what you said before.

2. Installing Linux as the pre installed OS wouldn't be a good idea for two reasons: A. People would likely have used windows mostly before then and wouldn't be used to it, so it'd be unfair to them, and B: It'd be shifting the pendulum all the way from one side of unfairness(all systems installed with windows to start with) to the other (all systems installed with Linux to start with)

Here's my idea: Have the universities have a dept or third party that sets up/installs the OS of choice people want when getting a PC at University while also maybe trying to suggest a student choose Linux, but otherwise not pre-install any OS(rather leave it up to the student to decide) or force/"force" the new students into making either choice. That way no one is forced in any way to use any OS and Linux gets a fair shot. Sound fair?

Because if one was forced to use one OS by anyone that would be forcing them(if it were being done, that is), as that is what forcing means. Right now people are just pushed into windows as it is so widespread and well known for many people, but everyone still has a choice to change that OS or not even use it(with custom built PCs) if they so choose....and that is how it should be....let the user base and market decide what OS comes out on top, not anyone(MS or Linux users/advocates/etc) with any sort of goal or agenda. :)

Lol, I made it upo on the spot....so yeah it's likely to be a bit "lacking"...what I mean to say by that is that one might only need or want a "cheap car"(MS OS and PC) and not a more "expensive car"(A distro of Linux with more features/options/controls/etc)...i.e. they are happy and content with what they have, and switching to one that "costs more"(i.e. relearning things, maybe having to buy new HW for one's PC, some stuff taking more steps to get running, some games/apps not running at all, etc with the Linux distros I know of) wouldn't be needed or desirable for some.

I hope that example makes more sense now(it made sense in my head, but I have trouble explaining my meaning sometimes). :)

There's still a ton of "options"(even if in the same smaller "families"), and that can put off some consumers....i.e. those that just want to pick something off a shelf/"shelf" and go home and use it.

As you said there is still a learning curve....however small. Look at WIN10....some didn't want to change over due to the various minor things MS changed from 7 to 10, and that's with an OS they KNOW and are used to.

They can switch to other distros, yes, but from what i've seen of "infighting" and "loyalty to one's distro" in the user base/community this doesn't always happens and causes more and more new versions/distros to pop up as people break away to try new things on their own(as individuals or with help. This leads to more and more fragmentation of an already small user base/dev base, which doesn't help things.

Heck, if devs wanted to help they'd stop splitting off to make so many new distros and help others with the ones already in the public "market"...yet we get more distros over time, not less.

You can call it profiteering, I call it capitalism.....it is not always a bad thing to make money, even if some(like MS as of now) go overboard with it.

Heck, if Linux's main distros made a paid version(just a few bucks to cover dev costs and market it to people and PC makers) that might even push Linux into the public eye more and more and get the user base to increase as some seem to want. Yes, it'd be making money off of linux, but i'm sure those who did so(if they did so/could do so...dunno about linux's ability to even be sold given it's license/etc) would be able to keep themselves in check, morality wise....and it'd likely help to push the spread of Linux. :)

========================================

This 100%....all the fracturing of the community(due in part to one of the few downsides of anyone being able to develop such and Linux being so open) and all the distros more hurt than help the perception of Linux in the eyes of potential new users.

I have little doubt that if Linux(the devs and community) were to unite with maybe 3 or so distros and promote/tweak/develop them as much as possible then more would make the jump.

========================================

One could go to a custom shop and get a PC built their way with their parts/OS of choice, or go to a parts site online and buy stuff and build it themselves.

As for pre-built: As I just told rojimboo above: The sellers of such need to include a pre-installed OS as that helps sell PCs to people who want to buy and take it home and use it....and seeing as many know windows or know someone who knows windows, that is what they sell PCs with. Also(as said above as well) they need to recoup some of that cost, so they pass it on(like any product maker) to the consumer.

1. People can setup/tweak even Win10 to collect almost no data at all and make it as secure as can be with some work(same as linux users likely like to do with their systems).

2. I dunno about others, but even the little data MS/etc get from me is not a big deal........plus with data sharing among companies they get most people's data within some time anyways(well unless one lives off the grid, maybe).

You'd be shocked just how many are that "special" with regards to using PCs.....it's more than you think, I am willing to bet.....and add to that all those who just want to take something home and use it right away without having to choose from a bunch of options and learn a bunch of new things.

Problem is people cannot ignore stuff that easily and will wonder about the other things on said charts or overcomplicate things in their minds....it's part of human nature.

Sad to say, but like the line on each example they are fairy tales for most general users....most people i've seen are the "want a simple ready to use option right now" kind of people...the type who go to a store filled with 20 types of bread and will go each and every time to pick the regular plain bread because they are used to it and it works, to make it easier/not have to make a new choice and weigh new options.

Then you should set such parameters at the start, so no one can accuse you/anyone else of shifting the goal posts.

Everyone and their mum knows when people talk as that user did they mean the general user/general use cases.

I agree we might need to move this into it's own thread at some point, though....unless OP and staff don't mind, that is.

Not to be rude, but this bit plus the bit I snipped before it show you have obvious and clear bias against Windows which might cloud your judgement when discussing it vs. Linux....just my observations.

(And by bias, I don't think people always know they have biases or have them always for bad reasons.....just that sometimes one's love/like of something might cloud their judgement...know what I mean/what i'm saying?)

Now me? I see Win10 as a tool that serves a purpose...nothing more....I don't try to sell Win10 on purpose to anyone, or dissuade anyone from using anything else for the most part. That is how a discussion on such should be, imo.....bias should be kept to the fringes of such discussions and only objective truths weighed for pros and cons.

snipped to merge with post above

It's actually not quite as daunting in practice, because search queries should likely lead to Ubuntu/Mint as a recommendation for beginners. I will grant you that the abundance of choice here might seem overwhelming at first, but if you actually want to ditch Windows, this shouldn't be a massive barrier. And if you don't have a good reason to switch, it might not be advisable to begin with. You'll have to inform yourself about Linux at some point, anyways, because it's not Windows and you can't expect it to work like it. Now I'd say it's not rocket science, but a little bit of initiative and an open mind should be present.

For what it's worth: that's really not a problem.
For native games the installation procedure with Gog's standalone installers is almost identical to Windows games (you need to manually allow the installer to be run, which is not too complex and afair covered in one of Adamhm's threads). With Steam it's actually identical to a Windows system.
It gets a bit more complex if you want to run a non-native game, but I'd consider the mere possibility to try that as a bonus, not a baseline. We're not judging Window's viability for gaming by its ease of emulating PS4 games, either, do we?

That observation works for Linux, too, though. What do those people use a computer for? A web browser and a mail client? That's not going to be a problem whether you put them in front of Windows, Linux or Mac, for that matter. You don't necessarilly have to open a terminal to start Firefox.

I've not installed anything newer than Windows 7, so maybe the process changed in the meantime, but it was actually easier and faster to install Mint and Solus. As an added bonus you install from a bootable USB stick that can run the OS itself. Meaning: if anything goes wrong during installation you have a fallback including a web browser. Makes figuring out a solution quite manageable. It's lovely, really.

So there's a problem you may not have considered.

And I want to preface this by saying that I don't think everyone needs to switch to Linux. There are many users who probably should stick to Windows and I believe that you should have a good reason for making the switch.

That said, there are reasons not to want Windows to be the standard OS regardless of what the market dictates. Mainly open source and privacy. You might not care about the access Microsoft has to your computer.
But what about your physician's computer?
Or your government's?

No worries, dude, it's refreshing to be honest to discuss things with open-minded people who don't insult you in your face after the arguments go stale...

Ok so you mention 2 things -
1. choice of distros is daunting/confusing, and then
2. the installation of the OS could go wrong, possibly due to HW incompatibility, resulting in possible data loss etc.

Yet I was talking specifically about not having to use the terminal for some distros if that was too scaryyy...but let's just go ahead and address your points anyways.

Regarding 1.
Let me ask you this - how would you go about finding out which distro you wanted to install, if you wanted to migrate to Linux, for the first time? Would you google it? 'best linux distro' 'best linux distro for noob' etc? What would you find?

Let me give you a hint. -------> recommendation: any Ubuntu flavour, with your choice of DE (desktop environment)

Would you ask in a forum? What would they say?

Let me give you a hint. --------> recommendation: any Ubuntu flavour (probably with some fringe dissenting voices for some other user-friendly distros)

There are choices out there though - and that's the beauty of it, I think. The purpose isn't to scare users away surely - it's to entice them in, by providing options almost tailored to your needs and background. Only you know what you need and like and want. That's the whole point. There are many many articles and guides about which distro is best suited for which kind of person. All found at the top of your search results, waiting to be discovered and read. If you think there are more than a dozen viable distros recommended for a Windows10 migrating noobie, you'll be disappointed. And the main point is - you can't really go wrong.

Something nobody has mentioned is how easy it is to 'try out' distros by booting from a live USB stick. Yes you heard me. You can try out an entire near-fully functional operating system, by booting from a USB stick temporarily. Play and muck around with the desktop environment, see what the default apps are and look like, get a feel for it etc. Don't like it? Download another distro and do the same. This also applies to people using Linux for a while, distro-hopping sometimes.

Regarding 2.

How is that any different from installing/re-installing Windows 10? Hell, even some of the big Win10 updates could fail and bork the entire OS, and you'd need to reinstall Windows, possibly with data loss of important documents/files (raise your hand if that's ever happened to you, if you weren't prepared). To install an OS, especially Windows, you need to backup your stuff, possibly even prepare a little by reading up and doing some research about your installation options / possible partition preferences if not going 'automated install' mode etc. Yet, it is incredibly easy to install the main distros these days for Linux, at least as plug and play as Win10, some would say even easier and more brain dead (if pressing 'accept' once in awhile could even get more 'braindead').

So let me get this straight - somehow a gamer has managed to get a hold of a gaming machine, invest quite a bit into one, has read up about a niche digital distribution platform to buy games from (GOG, yes you guessed it), buys DRM free games and plays them, changing graphics settings and others to get the game running well, yet somehow they can't press a button to install and play a game on Linux? But but...they just did that on Windows (and more). Why would Linux be different? See below
^ There's something out there on Linux that allows you to press play when you want to play a game. Radical, right? That's what I was referring to. For some, it's a part of Steam (Steam Play/Proton), for others it's Lutris if you don't want to go the Steam route. These take the complexity and possible hassle of Linux gaming out the window - they figured everything out for you to get the game running (a bit like GOG with older games).

Um, you keep going back to that point (choosing a distro, avoiding the scaaaryy terminal), let's move on shall we, that point has been discussed to death now. Regarding emulators - no, not really. Regarding 'more work' - with Steam Play / Lutris, it's either press 'Play' or don't. If you however are not scared of the terminal, and have a curious mind and aren't completely computer illiterate, you might have messed about with WINE already. So you could follow some guide online to get a game running, if Valve/Lutris guys haven't been keeping up to date. Usually they are on top of things though.

Just to get this straightened out, this point about 'a lot of PC games can barely run on Linux, many not at all' - I tried to find some games that don't work on Linux right now. If you check protondb.com, it's a great starting point. Look at the top100 most popular Steam games. Of those, guess how many non-multiplayer-competitive-native games, are there that do not work currently on Linux? By that I mean, games like PUBG where the anti-cheat in a competitive multiplayer game and the lack of a native port, makes it 'borked' and unplayable on Linux? So ignoring those multiplayer titles in the 'borked' category in the top 100, what else is left?

One game. A recent one, with draconian DRM. Red Dead Redemption 2. The combined power of the Rockstar launcher coupled with DRM, borks the Linux compatibility. It just doesn't work on Linux (and barely in Windows I've heard actually), currently. The other dozen or so games, are all competitive multiplayer games like Destiny 2, PUBG I already mentioned, Rainbow Six Siege etc.

Thus, if you want to play that I guess about 10% of the top100 games, those particular titles, you should definitely at least keep a win10 dualboot, or stick with win10. No doubt about that. Else no vidya gaming for ya.

Isn't it surprising though how few games there are, that completely do not run on Linux? And how many work amazingly well?

Personally, once I realised and made sure I could play all my favourite/desired games on Linux, I finally nuked my Win10 completely, it was just taking up dead space. Currently I'm enjoying Anno 1800 on Uplay, Borderlands 3 on Epic, and many others from Steam non-natively through Proton. Even one competitive multiplayer game is up there working on Linux, without the fear of getting banned - Path of Exile - where GGG has specifically announced they won't ban you for using Linux. Also, my soon-to-be-massive GOG library will function much better under Linux than on any of its DRM brethren, I'm sure I will discover.

So that 'myth' about gaming on Linux being very limited, is just that - a myth. And in case of true incompatibility for some titles, dualboot is surprisingly easy actually. Or just stick with Windows. Also, try not to ever read about Linux, and live happily ever after in blissful ignorance ;)

sorry I had to chop these up into chucks and post them in multiple posts....

I believe that was exactly my point - people defend it due to comfort, longterm exposure and early-life adoption, i.e. they have used it a long time due to it being forced on them early and now after years they are somewhat comfortable with it. (not unlike being indoctrinated or brainwashed into something)

I would also add to that list that people defend Windows, not knowing about its competitors, and being misinformed about its competitors like Linux or even macOS, something we see on this thread already many times (regarding difficulty of gaming/number of borked games/level of complexity of installation etc).

The funny thing is, Windows/Microsoft doesn't need defending - the ridiculously dominant market share kinda destroys any arguments regarding anyone taking over the PC desktop market. It's just not gonna happen, especially anytime soon.

But is this because Linux is inherently inferior than Windows? Or is it because the giant behemoth muscles through its competitors and stomps them, in all kinds of ways, to prevent people even trying Linux out?
This point was regarding how Windows10 is forced upon the consumer at an early stage - when buying a PC. Your arguments just reinforced my point - Windows is sold for almost all new desktop PCs, even including user-built ones, with OEM win10 editions. Why? Is it because it's better than Linux? Or is it because people are comfortable with it due to being introduced to it at an early stage (again by forcing the user to buy Windows PCs), don't see anything wrong about contributing to a monopoly with a stagnant product, or don't even believe they have an option? Why does Microsoft get a guaranteed sale everytime a new PC is born? How is that fair? Who cares if you can install Linux later, if you've already paid Microsoft for the original, forced-upon-you OS (that you didn't want to even use)?
Yet people are basically forced to use Windows10, due to PC makers shipping it already installed on their computers, and believing (incorrectly) there are no other alternatives, or that they are too complicated due to misinformation.

Forcing is forcing is forcing, it is what it is, even if not at gunpoint or some other threat.
Wait - so it's not fair to ship Linux pre-installed on laptops and desktops, but it's fine forcing people to use Windows in pre-installed laptops and desktops? What? Not even slightly contradictory?

If there's an imbalance, and the little guy is getting bullied and pushed around, you need to give him a hand. These small gestures at academic institutions will barely dent Microsoft's dominant market share. I don't know why you seem so worried about that - as explained, they don't need defending.

Regarding your suggestion - that would require the IT guys to actually install each and every computer with an OS from scratch depending on the person's choice - way too much work and hassle. I think what you mean, is that have say 50% Linux laptops available, and 50% Windows ones available, and staff/students can choose. I guess that could work and would catapult the Linux usage statistics a lot just by doing that. Who says universities and other institutions aren't already doing something like that, just with different ratios? I.e. offer a few Windows laptops, but mostly Linux ones - once all the Windows ones are gone, the person has to take a Linux laptop. Hahahah. Gotcha.

You're arguing for fairness and freedom in a skewed, unfair and dictated marketplace. Freedom of choice and fairness does not exist - perhaps as an illusion only. Like I said - you'd have to scour the web to buy a laptop that ships with Linux even in 2020, you'd have to order it from the other side of the world and pay all sorts of fees just to bring it to your house, even if you found one. What's left? Oh right - buy a Windows10 laptop. Here you go Microsoft, take my money, even if I'm never going to use Windows. Wait. Where was my freedom of choice? I must have missed it. Where was fairness exactly in mutual representation of both Windows and Linux? I must have missed it.

There is only the illusion of freedom of choice - the monopolistic monster has seen to that in various ways.

As expected, this thread had become a place for Linux Haters vs Fanboys.

Ok I'm seeing another pattern here - i.e. the average user is a buffoon who can barely go to the bathroom on their own. Ok then. So again we need to define the discussion topic a bit.

There is no point for someone who cannot even type on the keyboard, to install Linux. That goes without saying.

There is no point for someone with 0-0.0001 of arbitrary unit computer literacy, to install Linux. That goes without saying.

However, if you're a gamer, you've upgraded your GPU once or twice, you've gotten some games to work and run, you've shopped around different digital stores including GOG, you've even tried out and made some mods run, then Linux might be up your alley. The learning curve will be easily manageable.

This I will just ignore, because it has no relevancy to anything. I could argue you are being very insecure and biased about your operating system preferences, even fishing for counter-arguments and the slightest excuse not to migrate to Linux, but I won't because it has no relevance to anything - it's just some personal musings that don't affect the validity of the arguments, like, at all.

Yeah um, correct me if I'm wrong but you cannot truly weigh the pros and cons of something if you've never even researched the topic, or dare I say, tried out the thing you are arguing about, Linux in this case. Most of your arguments rely on some piece of assumption, that has been proven false. Multiple times. You can repeat your arguments however many times you want, based on your own assumptions about the reality of these things, and your own opinions, but the facts are:

1. Choice of distro is surprisingly un-daunting
2. Almost all games run well on Linux
3. Linux is easy to install
4. It works very well out-of-the-box
5. Add here all the previously mentioned additional benefits and features compared to Windows (privacy, security, performance and resource utilisation, price tag and many others)

These may seem like they are subjective opinions from a recent convert and fanboy - instead of actually being objective facts, but well, it's easy to show the truth of the matter.

Now this whole time, I believe I've been fairly patient and tolerant of these bias and fanboi accusations. Really, I don't understand why it's up to me to convince anyone to migrate to Linux - why is the burden of proof on me, to show that Linux is better than Windows10? The facts speak for themselves, and people can and should weigh each pro and con individually for their own cases. I could honestly care less if you or anyone else migrates to Linux - but let's not pretend Windows10 is objectively superior to Linux, or that Linux doesn't trump Windows in most ways, or that [insert here one of the many misconceptions of Linux that Windows users have]?

Yup

Again, to many general users they are either not in the mood/too lazy to even do that amount of research or they find that to be too daunting(as I said, some even find having to use a search engine to be a daunting task to find information, as evidence in many instances here and elsewhere online).

As such, many don't want to do the research, and for those that do the list of distros for Linux can turn some off(just seeing all those names/pluses/minuses/etc).

Some still worry something could or would go wrong, though, and that alone turns some off. Also with MS there is one "flavor" atm....Win10(albeit with a few editions)....whereas with Linux there are 3 main flavors(if I got it right) and a bunch of subflavors.

This and other facts should be put into a short, easy to read list(along with the best 3 distros for "newbs" listed clearly and prominently in layman's terms and catchy bullet points/etc) for those on the fence.....it might help get some to try it out.

People are more confident to install new versions of windows if they're used to windows as usually it's mostly the same process and people are more familiar with such.....even if there are some slight differences.

Also, as I said, sometimes Linux doesn't play well with all the HW a person has and many don't want to buy new parts to use a new OS.

Most of those things have been simplified to a few clicks and some data input these days....also many are basic tasks people are used to by now that are the same no matter what OS one uses(buying stuff online, etc).

Most pre built PCs run just by plugging them in, internet sites are made to be more simplified and easy to use with little input, etc....same with a lot of tech these days.

I wasn't joking before when I said people seem to be heading towards the route of the movie Idiocracy in larger numbers, with everything being simplified and people relying more on others to do/find out things for them.

Those things don't run ALL games, though...some need a bit of work and(afaik) some won't even run on Linux at all.....and even for the big amount that are install and play, one would still need to install and learn that new OS first....a hurdle that some don't want or feel the need to get over.

Still, as I keep saying, it's not JUST THAT.....that is just ONE part of why some don't want or need to make the switch.

There are many things/hurdles, which I have listed several times...yet you seem to think everyone can easily toss all those aside and just use Linux because you found it easy and worthwhile to do so?

The funny thing is some people have bought consoles or used some OSs just for 1 game or a couple games, so yeah a dual boot could also work for some who don't want to leave windows and have access to it for some reason but who ALSO want to try out Linux.

Doesn't matter to some.....it's(to use my analogy before but modified a bit) as if you have a functional car that is only needed to get from A to B....there is no need, then to get a new car if what one has does it's function.

So you don't know and are just assuming based on how it seems to far? Well if it works for you than more power to ya.

This is reasonable and I agree.

This isn't...it suggests windows is inferior to Linux and shows your bias a bit.

BTW, I am not trying to be rude by stating such, but in order to have an open and honest debate all allegiances/biases need to be thrown out the window, I think.

===================================

Dunno about others, but I don't "hate" Linux....I just don't see the need to use it personally.

Or, as I said and keep saying, it works and does it's job....if one has a tool that works and they don't need much else, there's no need to chuck it into the trash for something else.

(Also one could say the same about your apparent overt praise of Linux and how it makes you come across to some...you got into it and now praise it above other OSs a bit much, it seems....just my two cents)

Some(including me) also made some valid points like "it just works" and "too many distros making picking one a daunting task for some", just to name a few.

Also(again) it's not so much defending in my case(dunno about others here) as just explaining why there is no need for some to switch.

And Linux doesn't need defending either....it should rise or fall on it's own merits, same as anything else.

No one said Linux was inferior, and no one stops people from trying out/forces people not to use Linux....as I said if Linux were promoted better and there were less competing distros(for starters) I have no doubt more would look to it.

No one is forced, and people CAN have Linux installed on custom built or self built PCs...there is no grand "conspiracy" to keep people off of Linux.

No one is forcing anyone, as I said before, and people know about their options...they just choose to stick with what they have as it works(as I keep saying).

Not every new PC....custom buildsand self builds can just use Linux if they so choose and not have to touch Windows at all.

Most likely know there are alternatives, they just don't want to switch & should be able to make that choice. If Linux devs and users want more to use Linux they need to look inward to fix these issue and shortcomings, NOT try to complain about the market/etc.

No one is forcing anyone to use anything.....you keep misusing that term.

I'm not defending MS....I just don't think a wrong or a "wrong" should be fixed by swinging the unfairness(real or imagined) back the other way.

50-50(or 33-33-33 with Mac) would work...but no, no ratios of higher numbers of ANY OS on the laptops to be fair, so no "gotchas"...that way it's fair for all.

Because that's TRUE FAIRNESS.....one doesn't swing the pendulum back the other way to spite/get back at the ones they think or know are unfair....that's not being fair, that's just being unfair to the other side.

There is choice, and btw an aside: you seem to be showing extreme levels of bias here, and it's affecting your replies a bit.....you seem to see MS as very bad and Linux as very good, and don't seem to want to change your mind on either, and that isn't conducive to good debate....yes, a bit offtopic but I felt it needed to be said.

Many "gamers"/gamers are just smart enough to use a PC for basic tasks but not smart enough to relearn a new OS....that is the group i'm talking about, to be clear, and they are more likely to stick with what works for them.

And to me that is fine(as it should be for anyone).....we should all let people use what they use, and why worry if someone uses something one dislikes as long as that person is happy and not harming anyone(physically/mentally, I mean) with their choices.

It does if it affects the debate itself.....to debate properly one has to be willing to see stuff from other people's POV and weigh the pros and cons of what is being discussed with an open mind....if one has their mind made up from moment 1 it makes actual debate almost impossible & people just then end up parroting their beliefs back and forth.

I am not as biased, I think, as I am open to NEW OS choices and the benefits of such & can see the minuses of my own OS.....I just don't see a need to change my current OS.

Also they aren't excuses, but rather reasons why OTHERS likely don't switch over or do so more readily....just me explaining why I think many don't switch over(of those who know about Linux, I mean).

You don't need to use something to weigh the pros and cons if they are well known.

You act as if people insulted you very rudely and called you names....the most I saw was some saying you are biased or appear biased....to me, that is minor, and if you want to debate you should expect/be ready for these sorts of criticisms.

1. You shouldn't be trying to convince anyone at all...this isn't the place for it and no one asked for it...just as no one is asking me to try and sell them Win10(I am just talking about it in reply to you atm). 2. If you choose to do so the onus is on you as(iirc) you made the initial claims about Linux.

I agree people should weigh stuff for themselves, but if you want to debate properly and with an open mind(and not turn off others who are less patient and tolerant of such as I am) you need to exhibit less bias and be more open to the good of things you dislike and the bad of things you like.....i.e. be able to see things from a more objective POV.

(I hope the above doesn't come off as rude/etc btw....that was not my intent & i'm only trying to help give some pointers on such if you decide to chat about such with others in the future.)

Also thanks for at least being civil and talking with me on this for so long....it is appreciated, even if we don't agree on everything on this 100%..have a good one. :)

@GameRager - We've taken the multiquote reply posts as far as they can go, I think. Let's do bulletpoint numbers and work under those, shall we? There's a lot being written on both sides, but very little substance, I believe, and the argumentation is becoming weaker and weaker...

IMO, the topics of discussion / outstanding points are:

1. Choice of distro - is it daunting/confusing, or not really?
2. Installation of Linux - braindead or not?
3. Ease of gaming on Linux - is it more hassle on Linux and if so, is it manageable?
4. Linux games support - are there many games unplayable on Linux?
5. The hypocrisy of the Windows monopoly - why Microsoft is allowed to 'force' their OS everywhere at an early age, leading to all sorts of bias and prejudice later in life, but Linux not?
6. The pros of Linux vs Windows
7. The cons of Linux vs Windows
8. Do the pros outweigh the cons for Linux vs Windows?
9. The value of experiences from a user experienced in both Windows10 and Linux
10. Irrelevant personal stuff that should be avoided

Feel free to add numbered points in your response. I shall now reply to each numbered topic, in order, hopefully you can do the same.

1. Your latest response was literally 'some users find Googling to be too daunting a task'. I'm pretty much speechless at this. How weak can the argumentation go?? Are we being realistic here at all? Who are you talking about? Who finds googling to be too daunting? Why would anyone consider them to be potential Linux users, if such people even exist? Like, wtf mate. You went fishing and came up with nothing. Except maybe old shoes.

2. You replied that people are used to the Windows installations more and thus prefer them - this said nothing regarding the ease of installation of Linux, by the way. The installation process is remarkably similar, and requires left-clicking once in while to press 'Accept' or 'Continue' or the 'Big Red Abort Button'. My nod actually goes to most Linux distros here because they ship with very recent GPU drivers, and other hardware drivers, out of the box - something that can't be said of Win10.

3. and 4. I've now mentioned how easy it is to play games on Linux, approximately 3-4 times, in different ways. Your replies here are a very stubborn "No." "Not all games" "Some need a lot of work to run" "It's still complicated". At some point you're either going to have to believe me, or try it for yourself, I don't really see any other way out of this. Is it mostly braindead clicking 'Install' and 'Play' when you wanna play? Sure. Are there some / a few exceptions? Sure. Will you miss out on anything? Depends what you play. Is gaming on Linux surprisingly easy and amazing? Yes, yes it is.

5. Apparently you're saying people have a real choice when buying a laptop, not to buy Windows10 with it. Show me in which country is this prevalent? Are you talking about the places where you can get custom laptops tailored to your specifications? Where are those shops? How many of them are there? Aren't you entirely limited by choice, regarding OS in the laptop market? Come on man, let's be honest here. The Redmond tax is real, and you don't even acknowledge it. I only know of one PC seller that bundles Linux and offers the option in laptops / PCs - Dell, and that's great. But there really is a lack of choice here if you don't want a Dell.

Incidentally, shipping software by default with PCs, was deemed monopolistic a while back, by many countries and institutions. Including the EU. Remember the whole Internet Explorer lawsuit? Microsoft knew people were lazy and PC illiterate - they probably would just stick with whatever browser came with the OS and the PC. Well, that's how to stomp out competition - so it was ruled a choice had to be presented during and after the OS installation, about your default browser. The usage share of Chrome and Firefox and some others immediately shot up. Same thing here, except money is being exchanged on top of all that.

6. Oft-mentioned pros of Linux vs Windows (from your desktop user point of view)
(i) Customisation - of almost everything, like the desktop environment
(ii) Appearance - many options to make it look better, better than macOS too out-of-the-box for most distros
(iii) Performance and resource usage - hogs a lot less, runs better especially on older hardware
(iv) Applications Store - A curated software 'boutique' available on each distro with handpicked apps, that you just click install to use
(v) Updating all software and drivers with one click/command - this is huge
(vi) Open-source, and community support related to that - this is actually many pro's in one. Free software, with the freedom to donate to relevant projects to keep them going, getting updates quickly and often from the community, community support everywhere, knowledgeable and helpful experts of non-proprietary software, and so on.
(vii) Security - whilst some would argue Linux is inherently more secure, especially out-of-the-box, I would say the main reason there are so few viruses, malware and exploits for Linux, is due to low penetration in the market, low number of users. But the fact remains, it's safer to use Linux, even more so than macOS.
(viii) Privacy - again, out-of-the-box way more private, doesn't send telemetry to behemoths in the industry collecting your information on all sorts of things to do targeted marketing by third party companies. Also, VPNs and related functionality is these days built into the kernel, making it very convenient and effective to utilise.
(ix) Stability - no more inexplicable Blue Screen of Death!
(x) Troubleshooting - Logs of everything to pinpoint the issues, solutions abound from communities (who can actually realise the issues due to these logs and have many commands at their disposal)

7. Oft-mentioned cons of Linux vs Windows
(i) Software and hardware compatibility - whilst alternatives exist (usually free ones), they might not be exactly the same in features and functionality, i.e. diehard MS Office users won't use Google Docs, LibreOffice or any alternative because REASONS. Even cloud software won't help here, regardless of OS. Other notable points - not all games function on Linux (though there aren't that many, and they are mostly one specific category/genre), some exotic hardware with proprietary drivers for Windows-only will find it difficult to be utilised to their full potential.
(ii) A bit of a learning curve - this is often exaggerated, but it does exist. PC illiterate people need to stay away.
(iii) Accepting change - years of Windows usage as the default OS due to whatever forced reason, means many users will be very reluctant to see any good in an alternative OS.

8. I think so, just by looking at the pros and cons, but it depends on your priorities and background.

9. I think it's more valuable to hear from people experienced in both Windows and Linux, than to hear from largely uninformed people, who rely on (false) assumptions about Linux to throw doubt about using/migrating to the OS. This applies to most things, actually. I'm not saying you need to be hit over the head with stick, to realise that getting hit over the head with a stick is likely very painful. I'm saying these experienced people have more relevant things to say in the discussion, than the ones who have never/will never even see the other side in any way, shape or form.

10. Bias this, bias that. Nobody is unbiased - that's impossible. Let's be real for a second. You like Windows, I prefer Linux. I won't convince you, you definitely with your weak arguments and lack of knowledge about Linux, will ever convince me to go back to an inferior OS. What we are doing, is discussing an issue, with the hope of learning something new, whilst being entertained somewhat. That's it. As soon as it gets to the point when things get personal, I will call you out on it, and back away slowly. So far luckily that has not happened. Although it's really annoying that you keep pointing out my bias multiple times, and never seeing your own bias and pretending you are objectively impartial in this matter or in any matter...for that matter ;) It's completely irrelevant to the...matter...at hand, and doesn't contribute at all to the discussion, so why even mention it?