• BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The steamdeck is the first step to that future

    I’m sure people said the same about android

    I get that SteamOS is an actual desktop distro, and that’s closer to a daily driver than any android or bespoke *nix compatible SOC OS, but I doubt we’ll see this spread from steamdeck to daily drivers, unless…

    Unless linux can offer some feature windows/mac/ios do not, or at least market itself as doing so the way that Apple does, and get the overwhelming majority of tech consumers—who want nothing more than to keep up with the joneses and see the hardware specs numbers get bigger—to FOMO into it

    Unfortunately that would conflict with the most enticing features it does have that no one else does: a code of ethics that are inherently anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian. And honestly, who wants every Linux community, online or off, flooded with consumers who only care about the newest Feature™ and have no care about maintaining software freedom?

    • vd1n@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only thing I see holding people back is software availability. If it could run adobe and games natively I don’t see why anyone would want to pay for windows.

      • moon_matter@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Software is definitely at the top of the list in terms of reasons. But the UX/UI definitely leaves something to be desired. I sigh heavily every time an application asks me to edit a text-based config file instead of giving me a GUI. It’s an unnecessary, error-prone process and most importantly I have better things to do than read yet another page of documentation. That doesn’t mean I want the config file to go away, it’s still very useful for a variety of reasons. But I shouldn’t have to mess around with it just to remap keys or other common tasks. Editing a config file should be a last resort for an end user.

        You see similar problems when relying on the terminal. I don’t like this idea of the end user being allowed to mess around without a safety net or some sort of guidance.

        • mifan@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s more about trying to change particular industries. If all of Adobes software was available for Linux in a supported and stable versions, you could see changes in the OS used in lots of design and creativity industries, which again would change what OS people use at home.

          Also I think the force of being open source and spread over so many distros, is also a weakness in terms of getting the mainstream user to use it. My dad will call me or ask his friend about how you do this and that in Windows, but if our OS per default looks different from what others are using, he will not be able to get the same kind of help from his near community, and will have to rely on a more technical kind of support.

          And things have to work out of the box. If I hear “You CAN get it to work” - I won’t use it. I need things to just work, I don’t have time to (nor interrest in) spending a night mingeling with config files to have simple things do the things they’re supposed to.

      • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, but Apple has already pivoted to being the “privacy-friendly” OS/devices. Whether or not that’s true–I don’t know for certain (I have a hunch, though)–they have much more visibility and influence and marketing, and therefore will cement themselves in people’s minds that way.

        Besides, I like the idea of Linux existing outside the capitalist paradigm; instead of competing with the big names in the market, it’s on the outskirts playing its own game and absolutely crushing it. It has survived decades based almost entirely on word of mouth between computer nerds instead of vying for attention in the mainstream. As a technology it has achieved the platonic ideal: it is so good at what it does that it doesn’t need marketing, it survives solely on reputation and quality and user upkeep.