[deleted]
Is this a real question ?.One is about maximising profit extraction, one is not.
[deleted]
Submitted 1 month ago by Wurzl@lemmy.zip to [deleted]
Comments
hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Microsoft has billions of dollars
Exactly.
communism@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
They have a near on monopoly, and even if end consumers start switching to Linux, businesses are going to be much harder to sway. They simply don’t need to care about software quality when they have massive guaranteed business customers.
dudeface@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It’s worse than macOS, Linux not so much
1984@lemmy.today 1 month ago
Passion vs corporate.
Polyphilic@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Because ease of use and simplicity go a long way.
Its about mass appeal, not quality.
Normal people dont want to have to know CLI
The fact that you cant use Linux without at least some form of understanding of CLI is why it will never supersede windows.
Tiral@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Pretty much. That’s why Mac OS has such a cult following with non tech people. It’s simple, intuitive, does everything for you, and everything “just works” even if you’re paying top dollar for it.
douglasg14b@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It also depends on what you mean by worse than Linux. A lot of the criteria that you’re evaluating definitely have Linux as better than Windows, but Windows is better than Linux in other ways that I notice on a day-to-day basis when I’m switching between the two.
Performance under memory pressure is the biggest one, I think. I don’t know why, but Windows handles extreme memory pressure and heavy page filing incredibly gracefully, whereas any Linux device I’ve used, and Macs, seems to stutter, slow down, and really struggle under memory pressure, even when there is superior hardware involved. I usually have to wait several minutes before my daily Linux driver recovers from heavy page filing, whereas it’s usually just a couple of seconds with my Windows box.
toddestan@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Windows has had to deal with memory pressure a lot more than Linux. Some of this is bloat, but historically there’s also just been a lot of low end systems sold with Windows. All of the Windows 7 systems sold with 1GB, the Windows XP systems sold with with 256MB, running Windows 98 in 16MB, and so on.
Windows is always looking for memory it can page out and does a lot of preemptive paging so that if it suddenly needs a bunch of free RAM - like if the user suddenly launches some memory hog of an application, Windows has it available. Windows is also a bit smart about it - it’ll page things out but still keep the data in RAM too. So for example an application idle in the background will be paged out in case Windows needs that memory, but it’s also kept in RAM so if the user pulls the application back up, Windows doesn’t have to read everything back from the page file either.
This has lead to complaints about Windows constantly thrashing the disk and doing things in the background, but there is some method to the madness. Though I will complain that Windows still seems to do this even in situations where the PC has a lot of RAM and large amounts of it aren’t being used.
The Linux kernel, on the other hand, doesn’t do a lot of this like Windows does. Which is fine so long as you have enough RAM. But in a situation where there isn’t a lot of free RAM and suddenly the user launches a big application, the kernel suddenly has to do a bunch of swapping to free up memory and that can take a bit, especially if the drive is slow.
The Linux kernel does have a “Swappiness” setting that can modify its behavior, but I’ve never really played around with that myself.
douglasg14b@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Thank you for thoughtfully engaging. I appreciate your knowledge.
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
That behavior with Linux is absolutely real, and it’s very weird that it hasn’t been fixed in over a decade. It’s due to the default OOM (out of memory) killer being way too conservative with killing an application when the memory is completely full and disk swapping. Some people have solved this with an app that watches for OOM situations and acts with more decisiveness to kill an offending application before it swaps and brings the system to a halt, called EarlyOOM.
That still isn’t quite as good as Windows handling though, as Windows can generally handle those situations without killing the application at all.
douglasg14b@lemmy.world 1 month ago
TIL!
Awkwardly, I find that the largest memory pressure tends to come from a particular web page that continually gobbles up more memory the longer it is open.
There’s always one of these somewhere, and I’m bad at closing tabs. I usually notice pretty quickly when I come back to my computer. As soon as we start hitting page filing, since everything is stuttering and slow, but if it goes overnight, it can literally be 15 to 20 minutes before the system is responsive again after I kill the offending process.
Whereas on my work device, which is Windows, I usually might not even notice until I’ve maxed out my page file, which can be 64 or 128 GB depending on the device. And even then, I only notice because file operations start getting slow because the SSD is being thrashed. Killing the offending process results in responsiveness usually within a few seconds and a full clear out of the page file in a couple minutes.
The explanations that I’ve gotten from another commenter make a lot of sense. That Windows has just always had to deal with high memory pressures, so has been forced to mature in that sense. It is rather odd that Linux is behind on this, though, given its overwhelming representation in headless environments
thanatotus@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
I dont know; this seems like super specific case where you’ve economic means to afford or be around all of those high end systems and the same hardware is underpowered for your use case.
My first personal laptop had Windows 7 but as soon as Windows 8 came it struggled (only having measly 2GB of RAM) - so i switched to Ubuntu and it was a breeze for the next 10 years. I always used to try new version of Windows when released but it they always seemed to be memory hog and become bloated over time.
aim_at_me@lemmy.nz 1 month ago
You kind of haven’t addressed the point though, you’ve just pointed out that linux experiences memory pressure less often.
But OPs point is that Windows is better at it when you inevitably fill its memory. I run multiple clusters of docker containers and virtualised systems in my day to day, and its true that linux (Ubuntu at least) isn’t the best at huge memory pressure, especially when I fill swap. And I’m running the latest intel chip with 32gb. I wish I’d gone 64gb… but, memory prices.
defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Who’s going to be a more well rounded person? The spoiled rich kid or the kid who had to struggle through life?
ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Bad news - we’ve improved the definition of ‘well-rounded’ to mean extracurriculars in high school plus courses outside the requirements for your major in college. So the rich kid wins by a landslide.
AlteE@programming.dev 1 month ago
Vibe coding.
JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 month ago
It’s subjective. I’m not trying to be dismissive or something, but it’s that simple. Windows is more successful than Linux for what Microsoft wants it to be more successful at.
I’m not saying Windows is better. I like Linux more. I use it. I’m just saying that for the personal computing market share that Microsoft wants, Windows is more successful than Linux.
To be honest, if Microsoft wanted to affect other stuff with Linux, they’d probably just contribute the changes they want into it. It wouldn’t surprise me if they already did. They contributed many features to git for things they wanted to use in git.
osanna@lemmy.vg 1 month ago
they’d probably just contribute the changes they want into it.
I’ve heard they’re one of the biggest single company contributors to linux. No idea how much truth there is to that, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
altphoto@lemmy.today 1 month ago
Money can’t buy love. Fuck Microsoft.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Money won’t buy quality either
altphoto@lemmy.today 1 month ago
If the free software foundation got 1 billion, it would do many times over what 300billion has done for windows, but not just the OS but the entire software ecosystem around Linux. And it would all be ours to keep.
DjangoFett@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Linux is safer than Windows
Yes and no. Security through obscurity doesn’t innately mean its more secure. The recent AUR debacle proved that all it takes is a competent and malicious actor with the time and dedication to make something to target Linux. And why has nobody done it? Because the Linux market share is still absolutely pathetic compared to Windows, and is even abysmal when compared to MacOS. The returns on hacking a single Linux distro simply aren’t worth the investment.
I would also argue it is far easier to unintentionally brick your system with Linux, and if people don’t know what they’re doing (see: most end users) they can and will very easily leave themselves more exposed in the long run than by using the spyware that is Windows/MacOS/iOS/Android.
This pretty effectively explains all your other bullet points with minimal extrapolation; everything else you listed requires significant know-how for the systems to function properly. These are the super-deep superusers. Some of them probably tossed a few bones to Microsoft and their end-users, but as others have pointed out individuals and companies have vastly different motivations.
Between those main ideas… Yeah…
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Linux is safer than Windows
Yes and no. Security through obscurity doesn’t innately mean its more secure.
Linux cannot leverage security through obscurity, since its source code is open, so this point is not pertinent.
Aur isn’t Linux. Aur is a feature of a distro and not Linux code.
But I get your point: Aur is a product of dark-pattern app coding that flies in the face of established best practice, of ISO, and of SLSA. Had we not fired our mentors and documenters 20 years ago we would not have had such a Lost Boy generation of system engineers growing up in that wasteland without mentors to tell them why something is a really dumb idea.
Supply-chain exploits are preventable, but only if coders are led by proper system engineers who follow and enforce standards; but this is boring and costly so neither VC money nor the kids building these really bad tools are gonna magically support such a notion.
DjangoFett@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Obscurity as in there are how many flavors each with their own repos and dependencies? And which one are you using? So which vulnerabilities work on you? And are you even aware of them?
Hiding among the weeds obscures you from view.
And while AUR isn’t Linux code and I definitely understand that, it is very much what you’re talking about; if anybody bothered to RTFM, they’d have had as many AUR issues as I did when the shit hit the fan - precisely none. And I’m only on Arch because Cachy is basically iOS for Arch if you can read and utilize copy/paste functions, a dazzlingly high bar for entry that somehow even I am capable of.
Then again, I also know enough to have a clue as to how much I really don’t know. Most people just assume magic box makes pretty pictures happen and anybody who knows how to change operating systems are literal wizards.
And so I would argue that being on Linux and the variety of flavors is, again, a form of obscurity in and of itself. Yeah, its all open source. Did you plot an attack for that distro? That file structure? How about a missing dependency? It simply isn’t worth it to plot Linux malware at this market share just like 20 years ago it wasn’t worth it to put malware on Macs; their use is still too obscure. Once critical mass is achieved, watch Ubuntu and Mint malware variants increase by an order of magnitude. Until then, the whales are all on Windows and Mac.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 month ago
Linux better than Windows?
Lol
They’re different.
Ask the world’s biggest companies, who spend hundreds of millions annually to manage tens of thousands desktops for tens of thousands of users, which is the better desktop OS for their use-case.
This is such a tired, worn-out argument, that medley demonstrates an ignorance of how business operates.
Hell, Windows user, system, and software deployment management was mature before Linux even existed.
Each has their strengths - Linux is a better choice for general servers, which is why every virtualization platform runs on it, while massive file servers, web servers, etc, run Linux.
naught101@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Those companies aren’t paying for quality software, they are paying for support and vendor lock-in.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
The familiarity of users is not really an argument for an OS being good though, is it? Neither is how deep you’re into the ecosystem. Of course if you say to a windows admin that runs an AD forest with 10k users “you should just switch to Linux because it’s better bro lol” you can’t be taken seriously, but that is not because windows is “better”.
Hell, Windows user, system, and software deployment management was mature before Linux even existed.
Sorry what? I would barely call the mess of AD/AAD/Entra/Intune/whatever “mature” today, the registry is a shitshow, same with GPOs, and you’re saying it was actually good in 1990, on Windows 3.0, 9 years before the first release of AD? Also, what software deployment?
Each has their strengths - Linux is a better choice for general servers, which is why every virtualization platform runs on it, and also why massive file servers, web servers, etc, run Linux. Or for purpose-built solutions.
And which are Windows’? Whenever someone says that “windows has its strengths”, it always seems to boil down to either a) users know how to use it or b) some software I need is not available on Linux. Both are legitimate points and I don’t fault anyone for running windows in those situations, but neither is a point for the OS per se. You listed several for Linux, I’m curious if you can name some for windows that are not the above.
Also, a hacker recently got caught because he was using Windows, so…
So, what? Are you happy a “dangerous criminal” was stopped using undocumented intrusive telemetry or that it demonstrates that skids who use windows exist?
Candice_the_elephant@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Capitalism
hoohoohoot@fedinsfw.app 1 month ago
Because programming something that is open and free for anyone to see ane change and contribute is fun! And fun means better programming and love towards the software
Microsoft doesnt love its software or its users.
They got the userbase they
havehad and abused everyone.. they can no longer do that without consequncesaski3252@lemmy.world 1 month ago
A lot of reasons. First of all, it’s not really their goal to make a good OS for users. They know that 95% will use windows no matter what, especially businesses, because they still more or less have a monopoly, especially in the desktop market.
In other words, any ressources spent on improving the desktop OS experience past the bare minimum is excess because they don’t really get anything concrete in return.
Yes, windows is less efficient than other os, but until recently, this wasn’t a problem for microsoft since you can just throw more/better hardware at the issue, which is a win win. They have to spend less ressources at optimizing code for better performance and, I imagine, they get a better cut since their hardware partners sell more devices because hardware gets obsoete every couple of years.
And in the server environment, they want it to be increasingly expensive because windows server is mostly used in cases where there is no alternative, and they want it all in their cloud.
Also, a lot of what is annoying about windows is per design. Ads, sponsorship ads, forced accounts, etc.
CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I agree with all your points. The quesion is why is Windows still dominating in market share?
Baggie@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
The answer is user awareness, brand loyalty and fear of the unknown. Windows is the devil you know, most of the people I game with are scared of the instability of Linux, despite it being roughly equal if not better.
I think standardizing the user experience, making things less scary and generally more welcoming are major hurdles, but the good news is that should come with time and a larger userbase.
CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Windows just works. I installed Linux on my older laptop and it couldn’t see any of my network shares. “Where do I click the button for sharing?” God, that would be too easy. Nope, start editing config files to configure samba. I just want to access files.
soEZ@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Office, the fucking office suit everyone and thier grandma uses that does not work with alternative that run nativity on Linux… ugh…i mean office works bearly between two windows machines…so its not like the open source community did not give it a try, but the random proprietary standard in .doc/docx etc …just locks us in…
CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I use LibreOffice and Office, and I much prefer Office. LibreOffice uses docx files just like Word does.
catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
The search bar just doesn’t work. It’s right in the middle of the screen so I keep clicking it and even type things in but it simply doesn’t populate with any results even if you wait. Absolute joke of a company
LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Priorities and objectives.
brax@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Microsoft and the like are doing a great job to prove they don’t have to release anything quality and people will still throw them buckets of money. It’s wild to watch, but hey it’s better they stay there than come to Linux in the masses to encourage the enshitification of stuff that’s still good.
daddycool@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Because Microsoft’s goal is to make as much money as possible for their investors.
Linux’s goal is to make a good (and mostly Open Source) OS for the community.
But to be fair, Windows, at it’s core, isn’t a bad OS. It’s all the bloat, that makes it almost useless.
abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Linux is a system and a tool, Windows is a product. You don’t market high end precise machinery to everyday people, because it can be a pain. You sell them a product that is easy and simple.
Microsoft is trying to do both and failing at both horribly.
naught101@lemmy.world 1 month ago
All scientific supercomputers use Linux
This is not true. Supercomputers do, but in my research centre there are still lots of people using Windows and Mac. Linux usage is definitely way higher than the broader populace, but it’s not “all”.
IPeaceInYourFace@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Too many chefs in the kitchen spoils the hroth
fum@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Power of the people.
When a collective works on something together for their shared benefit, the outcome will be better than when a company exploits people for profit.
NoodlePoint@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Bloat and feature creep, and is marketed not only to corporations because sysadmins’ existing experience with that platform, but also towards the mainstream as much as Apple and Google (through ChromeOS).
Sinthesis@lemmy.today 1 month ago
Profit some times makes terrible decisions. In other cases, where cost has a relation to efficiency, profit does great. See also: capitalism.
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 month ago
too many spoon is the bowl spoil the batter
WecottNow@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Windows is better in compatibility with many commercial products, but the gap is quickly closing, and I think Microsoft is feeling the pressure.
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
If you include the entire history of Windows programs, I have my doubts about this. For instance I’ve had more consistent results running old Windows games on Linux through WINE/Proton than I had in Windows 10. Linux may have better backwards compatibility with Windows programs than modern Windows does.
DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If windows is worse than linux then why are dev companies holding us all hostage on Windows?
dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Inertia
Dave@nord.pub 1 month ago
Linux and their users absolutely have reputations that make the mental move more difficult. Plus marketing. If more people, that are continually getting sick of Windows, knew that there was a plug and play Linux distro that’s as easy to use, they’d probably be a lot more likely to move over.
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
And paybacks.
atro_city@fedia.io 1 month ago
Marketshare
quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 month ago
Wdym?
DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 1 month ago
So why are all these companies holding the majority of the market hostage on windows?