Linux Has ONE Massive Problem

What are your thoughts, guys?



Clickbait title: the thesis of the video is that the problem of Linux is lack of users.

This guy is utterly clueless.

There are so many actual problems with Linux, like kernel bloat due to monolithic design, the Linux Foundation being dominated by corporations that are hostile to Linux, a bunch of wrong advice by clueless idiots on YouTube… None of that is mentioned in the video.

Lack of desktop users is not a major problem, we do stuff for ourselves, others are welcome to join, but their presence is certainly not required.


Well, I am talking here about Linux in general.

  • The terminal: who really cares, a normal user can use Linux without ever using the terminal (even in the “Terminal Centric Distro”, the “Weclome” would do everything for the average user.
  • For installing purpose specific software, in Linux distros there are graphic installers, or even one command to install.
  • Drivers… this is a long story, but we may need a database for supported or unsupported hardware.
  • Marketing Linux:
  1. it is much faster and responsive than Windoze (Google search)
  2. More secure and virus resistant by design vs. windoze.
  3. You do not need to buy new hardware every now and then because your hardware does not support the new release.
  4. you can install from the same CD or USB on as many machines as you want (not as windoze).
  5. you most of the time get software for free
  • User base is limited: Because Linux has a bad reputation of being for geeks/computer scientists… and the “dependency hell” old guys know about, which is sorted out now!
    AND windoze comes preinstalled on almost all machines. Why would users “look” for an operating system if it is already there!
  • there is no single entity coordinating/marketing/helping/… the different operating systems, not just the kernel.
  • if such organization or entity is there, we can have the same machines (as hardware) selling with Linux preinstalled as well. So users can decide and chose, which is faster, which is safer… etc. (we have Ubuntu/Canonical example)

Linux Has ONE Massive Problem

What is the ONE problem?

I know why I am typically not watching any videos about Linux.

So, he’s using Linux for two plus years and comes up with this video that mostly kicks in very wide open doors (the Nvidia issue and the user type Linux is attracting)

Linux lacks users and developers and therefore can’t go forward, he claims… He’s using Fedora with Gnome, two examples of projects in the Linux world, and there are many of such projects, that go forward with the constant speed of a Boeing or Airbus airplane.

I only have one thing to say to him,

Alice, wake up and smell the cappuccino and start looking at what happens in front of your nose.
Sweetie, you’re using a distro and a desktop environment that goes forward every six months, thanks to user feedback and a huge team of developers. Both projects do actually have a proper GUI interface and tools, so a user isn’t forced to use the terminal, let alone as root.
And instead of publishing a video about out dated views, because honey, your views are, despite your fresh age, start giving feedback and contribute to those projects yourself in any way you can.
Because THAT is the Achilles heel of the Linux realm, a relatively small group of people shouting their mostly unfunded opinions on it, but actually show zero effort in contributing to the Linux world to improve those features they think are a HUGE problem.

Now, this is out of my system, this not so fresh anymore, middle-aged man is going to make himself a cup of strong black coffee, so he can face the world again… :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

A little disclaimer, this post is my opinion mixed with a bit of humour, so you can have other opinions and that’s fine. Let’s go on with the day… :wink:


You’ve expanded on pretty much everything i had to say in my :clown_face: post :rofl:

1 Like

You said it right

1 Like

A comment from this video.

Linux distros have a huge problem on providing a way for the developers release proprietary apps (that are 90% of them) We need something like Android Studio for flatpaks, and a store that don’t require the project source to build it inside their servers.
Deploying a program for linux should be like this → Make the app on the IDE → The IDE exports the Flatpak bundle → You upload that to the store → Put your price → Done

Distribute the propriearty app for free, then handle payment yourself. Simple, and it works. Just look at Minecraft.
Steam is another option.

I think similar model of doing things already exists on elementary OS

I really like YouTube and consume content on it every day but people like this guy is why I’m slowly becoming disillusioned with Linux YouTube. Most of these people don’t know what they are talking about as they don’t do enough research. For these people using a distro for 1 hr in a VM is a distro review.

They just want to put minimal effort to created regular videos and get more views so they regurgitate these topics again and again like “why no year of linux desktop”


The massive problem is that video :joy: btw I haven’t watched it, although by looking at the image it says it all, click bait. :fishing_pole_and_fish:


Amusing Nonsense! :grinning:


Yes, dickheads who make crap videos.


I was wondering if this guy is on the forum and reading these comments! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Hope so :rofl: He might stop making them.

  1. Developer as distributor:

The developer is not the ideal distributor of packages for Linux based systems. Each package must be verified to work with the entirety of the distribution you wish to run it on. Package maintainers are the perfect person to accomplish this job. The developer is in no place to test their software on every conceivable distribution. Developers have a hard enough time implementing new features and fixing bugs. The package maintainer’s job is to build the package on the specific distribution and make sure it works within the ecosystem of the distribution. The package maintainer is familiar with the distribution’s build environment, compiler tool-chain, and system libraries, the interaction with other system components and the inter-dependencies between the package and the rest of the distribution. The package maintainer can most easily verify that the package will build and run on the specific distribution, the developer cannot. The package maintainer can also verify whether the package will run on the specific distribution without inserting any unwanted behavior or conflicts with the rest of the software in the distribution. The package maintainer also can verify whether the package contains any unwanted malware or behaviors that compromise security and privacy, whether those problems are intentional on the developer’s part or not.

The issue of trust is brought up. Think about this: if you as the user of a Linux distribution comprised of thousands of packages need to extend your trust to each developer, that is potentially thousands of points of trust to determine and verify. If I use Debian and trust their package maintainers, than that is a much more reasonable number of trust points I need to determine and verify, specifically only one point of trust in the Debian project.

One major flaw in the presenter’s opinion is that is formed on the basis of very incomplete knowledge of how Linux systems are built. Linux, like Unix before it, relies on thousands of individual pieces of software working together and interdependent upon each other. Any one function or task a user performs is comprised of many separate software components working together, and being built together with a compiler tool-chain that is predetermined, predictable, and consistent. All the pieces of a Debian release are complied with the same tool-chain and are linked against the same system libraries. Bug fixes and security patches are applied that may change individual software components, but those updates are tested for compatibility before being pushed out to the update path so they will not break the system. Suggesting that the developer be in a better position to distribute their software is only possible because some containerized application systems like snaps and flatpack make it possible to ship packages compiled to work on lowest common denominator versions of system libraries and/or must install duplicative versions of system libraries known to support the containerized package. What the user winds up with is a system with several versions of the glibc library, among various other system libraries, in that can support not only the native packages, but also the containerized packages. Every containerized application system carries a payload of wasteful duplication of software, increases complexity, introduces new vectors for security risks, and bloats the user’s system.

  1. Design Expectations of Linux vs Windows:

Linux assumes the user knows what they are doing and Windows assumes the user does not know what they are doing. I agree. This is one of the primary reasons why Linux is not meant to be a consumer ready operating system. This is not something bad about Linux, and it is certainly not something that should be changed. Linux offers its users complete control over their system. Windows does not. That is one of Linux’s primary strengths, not a weakness. If this sounds like gate-keeping, then it is. Linux users appreciate the power and flexibility of an operating system that give control to the user. This also means that a Linux user is responsible for being their own system administrator. It is necessary for the successful Linux user to learn about proper administration of their computer system. If that is gate-keeping, then it is good.

  1. Don’t bother with Debian 11:

WTF! Debian is a perfect choice for a Linux desktop. If your goal is to have a reliable and consistent computer experience that you control, Debian is a perfect choice. In all my years of using Debian stable, it has never let me down. Every update is smooth and my system always works as it should. Mind you, I know what I am doing. I have learned never to trust in-place updates from one major release to the next with every operating system I ever used, from Windows 3.1, Mac Systems 7, 8, 9, and X, to every Linux distro I have used. Most distributions claim it works, and it may work. I still never do it. I keep my /home partition separate (along with a list of packages I have manually installed to the base OS) and reinstall the OS on the / partition. This method has never failed me. I keep my data backed up, but I rarely ever needed to use a backup (it has always been my own mistakes causing a backup to be needed).

  1. New user only needs to know two things:

WTF! How to create a bootable USB stick from an ISO and how to change the boot order. If that is all a new user needs to know, that user will be running back to Windows within an hour. Linux requires relearning many common practices and workflows in order to be successful. Most importantly, Linux requires having a strong desire to learn, and experiment.

Secondly, most people don’t need to partition their drive manually? All users will need to grasp some basics of hard drive partitions before they start any Linux install procedure, even if they only use the guided partitioning functions. If a new user has no clue about partitioning basics, they will potentially ruin their Windows install and wind up with a non-booting system.

  1. Lack of users is the only thing that slows down development:

Developers need feedback, that is true. However, most open source projects receive user feedback. What they do not receive is user support, specifically monetary support. The lack of feedback is not nearly as important as the lack of support.

Secondly, driver support does not follow directly from a larger user-base. Driver support will follow from a larger user-base that purchases hardware. However, companies that produce hardware need to see enough of a profit motive to cover the increased cost of development and support for a new driver architecture. Since the Linux user-base is spread across multiple distributions, hardware vendors would need to develop, test, and support drivers that could potentially be used by dozens of different Linux distributions and users who have very different configurations. There is not enough momentum behind any one Linux distribution, with the possible exception of Ubuntu, to warrant a hardware manufacturer even considering the investment of Linux driver support for their hardware. Some hardware manufacturers are, and have been, providing driver support, but the numbers are never enough for the entitlement minded Linux community who think that a few million users warrant every hardware manufacturer’s attention and support. Even at a generous estimate of 2% of the desktop computer market, the Linux user community is nowhere near large enough to get a second, or even a first, glance from most of the hardware manufacturers. I would argue that Linux user community would need to exceed 20% of the computer desktop market to even approach relevant numbers. That ain’t happening folks!

Finally, the answer is always to pay attention to the hardware support available when making purchasing decisions. The presenter is far too young to remember and appreciate that for decades, if you want to run any alternative operating system, first do your research and identify what hardware you have and what hardware is on the compatibility list for th operating system you want to run. An alternative operating system is anything other than Microsoft Windows, and it has been that way since 1990. If you wanted to run OS/2, you needed to check the hardware compatibility list for OS/2. If you wanted to run NextStep, same deal, check the hardware compatibility. The same goes for NetWare, SCO OpenServer and UnixWare, Sun’s Solaris for X86, BeOS, and QNX. Microsoft has been the dominant operating system for over 40 years, and in all that time, it is the user’s responsibility to research and follow hardware compatibility requirements for the alternative system they wished to run.

  1. Hardware manufacturers should open source their drivers:

Not simple. The presenter demonstrates a lack of nuanced appreciated for driver development. One hardware manufacturer may have NDA’s and cross licensing deals that prevent just opening the source. The source code license holders may be a corporation or group of individuals who do not all agree on opening up the code. The hardware manufacturers may not even be able to identify all the licensing legal entanglements necessary to open source the code. This does not even cover the issue of who would be responsible for support and maintenance of the code repository if it were to be open sourced. Also, does the manufacturer want to support end users when they can no longer control the source code? What is the open sourced code repository were the victim of malware or tampering? What legal liabilities would that present for the hardware manufacturer? What open source license would the hardware manufacturer need to use in order for the code to be included in the Linux kernel? Is that open source license an option for the manufacturer? Lots of questions. Ans I am not a professional or a lawyer. Just think of the many conundrums I have neglected.

Also, proprietary firmware and drivers that limit functionality are bad? Where does this presenter live, in a fantasy land? Who is he to make that determination for every manufacturer?

  1. How Linux is advertised:

Most Linux proponents tout the open source ideals and benefits. Most users do not care about that. I agree. I would argue that if a potential user does not care about the benefits of open source software, then they are not potential users. Users who do not care about open source ideals should stick to using proprietary software. When they are ready to learn and care about software freedom, then they are ready to experiment. Until then, what is the problem?

I will avoid the discussion of privacy, since that is pointless debate. Modern society offers close to no privacy. If you are going to use the internet, your cell phone, credit cards, bank accounts, any healthcare system, among many other modern conveniences of life, then you have all but given up your hope of maintaining privacy. Using Linux is not going to appreciably affect your level of privacy. It may give you an illusion of control, but that is it.

Finally, I agree with the presenter’s conclusion. The best advertising of Linux is to use it, become more proficient, and spread the word when appropriate. Linux has grown organically in much the same way. Remember, it has taken Linux close to 40 years to reach possibly 2% of the desktop market. Maybe my great, great, great, great grandchildren will see Linux reach 20% market share! :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

This is the only part I disagree with in the whole post. There are some distros which assume 0 knowledge (ie. Linux Mint) and will guide you.

I couldn’t get past halfway…
In summary, he says:

  • I don’t even know what’s happening

  • There are often no good graphical software managers

  • And yeah, of course, I don’t mind using the terminal.

  • I also know how to use it due to my study program!

Hmmm and then complains that, because 99% of desktop users are using Windows gaming machines, he can’t persuade Logitech to support his mouse fully on Linux, and so we need a ton more users.

It’s true - from that perspective, the main bug in Linux is that it will not become a main operating system for Desktops or Gaming unless it hits some critical mass of users.

Everyone knows this already - but we stopped lauding the ‘year of the Linux Desktop’ in maybe 2007 it was already getting old.