Linux

Need hardware with it pre installed with a reason to buy other than because it has Linux

Maybe use the lack of a requirement for a Windows license to bring the price to performance ratio down

If they're really performant machines also helps break the idea Linux is only for old and slow machines, I only ever used to put it on laptops as they were reaching the end of their usefulness, the moment I put it on my pc and a new laptop it changed my perception on it entirely

I also think the majority of technical users still use windows, maybe we should concentrate on getting them first and maybe we'll see more support

Whether any OS could ever just work isn’t even going to solve the issue.

Getting OEMs to sell laptops and desktops in Best Buy (or the like) that have Linux installed and is properly supported — that is what will help solve the issue.

On top of being preinstalled, we also need google search-able instructions that avoid the terminal altogether. People are afraid of the terminal, it doesn't matter why, it just is.

Currently, most solutions to linux problems come in the form of terminal commands. We would have to start creating a whole new troubleshooting forum where instructions avoid the terminal and are just lists of buttons to press in a GUI. Probably helpful screenshots too.

Of course I have no idea if some things even have GUIs at all, like configuring user groups and permissions or firewall settings, someone would need to make them. Not to mention every DE or program would need a different set of instructions, GNOME or KDE, firewalld or iptables. It'll be a lot of work.

Most people have had great answers coming from the company side of things. I'll take it from the standpoint of individuals like us helping someone linux curious see the light, while still having the "just works" experience.

Do not give them any choices. None. Put them on your stable distro of choice for a new user, call whatever that is "Linux", and be on your way.

But why? Isn't that antithetical to everything we value? Yes and no. We value choice almost above anything else, but that doesn't "just work" for most people. Which of those do you value more?

More GUI front ends for stuff. This takes away the need to understand command line tools and syntax, and makes the out-of-the-box experience feel more like it just works.

Needs to be pre installed, most people don't know how to reset their PC, let alone install a new OS.

The problem is, that no operating system "just works". It also highly depend on what the person wants to achieve, and if there are any pre experience with computers or even relying on existing software or specific hardware. My recommendation is not to tell people the illusion of "just works" and be honest upfront. People should learn how it works, what to expect and if tradeoffs, time and resources are worth it.

Same is true for the other way too. Does Windows "just works"? Especially if someone switches from Linux to Windows.

Rather, we should teach the reasons to switch and encourage that decision. In example why it matters to have control over your system, rather than the company has control over it (MacOS and Windows) or why spying on you is bad (Windows). And encourage giving up something you are used to (and maybe paid). Sometimes its okay to use a program that is not as good as Photoshop. Sometimes its okay to give up playing a videogame you like (and maybe associated with friends playing that game with you). But most people are not ready to do it, because that is associated with lowering quality of life.

I switched in 2008 from Windows XP to Ubuntu. I know these struggles. And they are not over yet. This is an ongoing task between my brother and me too, and he was using the Steam Deck, but decided to go with Windows 11 with the recent build. It was almost there, but there is always a butt. I say, don't tell people that "Linux just works". No operating system "just works".

BazziteOS is really straightforward. Newbies can just jump on there.

MacOS being a bad example here since Apple only needs to make its OS work on a very small set of hardware that they control wheras Linux (and Windows, yes) need to work on probably hundreds of thousand if not millions of devices (including Macs 👌) with at least the same amount of peripherals combined in almost any imaginable way. That's a completely different task.

It would be nice if it was possible to simply go to a website, check off on the stuff you want and then get a full package.

I liked the idea of AV Linux, because it comes in a bundle of stuff that I need, but it also comes with a lot stuff that I don't need, and I'm not sure the desktop is my choice. It also didn't really work at the time I tried it.(Some years ago).

So.. if I, a stupid user, could simply go to a website, check mark at the desktop, check off which office package, music apps, browser, etc.etc. and then get a download of that in one go where it's all set-up and works, it would be a lot easier than having to go through the process of installing the OS and then installing/removing apps, and then making it work..

Like, let's say I want a PC just for music creation, I should be able to download the the OS with the DAW of my choice, all the VSTis and potentially also the most common free sound banks. In one file.

If I wanted an office PC, I should be able to get the OS, the office suite of choice and all the misc. PDF tools, email client and whatnot of choice. All in one go.

Windows and macOS sort of came with everything before, but these days they're just as annoying to set up as any Linux distribution. Linux as a whole could take advantage of that situation by offering a prepackaged but custom installation.

Of course it would also help if someone made a Linux installer for windows, so users didn't have to use windows to create a bootable USB. I think this is the step that normal users hesitate on. I don't know if it's possible, but it ought to be possible from software to partion the disc and install dual boot or something.

Software, 1,000%. I love linux and daily drive it. But when I have videos to edit, photos to rework, or collateral to design I have a windows laptop with professional grade tools to do the job.

I'm sorry, gimp is hot garbage. There isn't a pro-grade, open source video editing tool or anything close. Inkscape is useable in a pinch. Scribus is useless.

Not everyone is a multimedia creative professional, but most software on linux never quite have the features you need, are no longer maintained, or will be useful in ten years.

That said, I'd still rather break out the laptop when doing client work than daily drive MacOS or Windows 11. Either way the barrier for most users is that linux almost works.

Linux is a tool that big corporate entities have profited greatly from for many years, and will continue to. Same with BSD, Apache, Docker, MySQL, Postgres, SSH...

Valve, Sys76, Framework, etc. Are proving that using Linux to serve an end user market is also profitable, and are capable of supporting enterprise use-cases.

I understand that there may be specific problems to solve wrt improving adoptability, usability, compatibility, etc., but Linux is doing more than ok within the context of the FOSS ecosystem (and increasingly without).

Your thinking is slightly skewed, IMHO. Linux doesn't have an inherent incentive to compete with MacOS or MS, and if it did, it would be subject to the same pressures that encourage bad behavior like spying on users, creating walled gardens, and so forth.

Software-wise, it seems that the relatively fast adoption of flatpaks and other containerized formats somewhat solves the typical dependency hell that was so common in Linux just a few years back (and to some extent still is an issue today depending on your distro and use case). The hardware support side is a little harder. That's going to be up to vendors to play nice with the Kernel team and/or introduce reasonable userland software that doesn't break the golden rule. Until Linux gets more market share the latter isn't likely to happen. A nice side benefit of the emergence of immutable and/or atomic distros is that users can play around and try things with much lower risk of bricking their systems, so I'd also consider that a step closer in the "it just works" department.

lack of some kind of standardization

Standardization = monopoly risks. It's not worth it in the first place.

It is very hard, time consuming and boring to iron out those finishing issues in any software product. You need team of people being paid for that.

When doing it for fun, I just go until it works and until it is fun. As soon as I come to those last 20% I never touch it anymore.

So ai doubt it will happen until more companies start paying decelopera to do it. But I don't see the business model in that, so I doubt it will get better fast.

Kinda don't think you can its one of the beauties of Linux, there's so many different flavors of it. Best thing that would've helped me as a beginner would've been like a collection of all the wiki's and basic knowledge in a single space instead of searching through different sites for a problem or terminal commands, which I bet exists but I just never looked too hard. Also documentation of common problems would've been big for me (especially for older devices) like drivers no longer being supported by kernels and solutions like using the open source version instead.

Mac OS is not a "just works" experience. It is heavily tied to icloud and Apple services and everything is janky.

Maybe if Mac OS matured a bit I would consider using it but for now it is in a broken unusable state.

Immutable distros like Silverblue or Bazzite are the only path I see that can work for normies. However flatpak itself has to mature more, theming anomalies need to be dealt with somehow for example.

Mint is only good to ease a technically inclined person into the linux world.

So reading all of your responses

• Tested and preinstalled hardware
• One resource to solve the issue not many
• Customizablity when needed
• Easy rollback when something breaks
• Changing people mindset that Linux isn't for desktops

Does anyone have more?

Fedora Kinote just works.

More appealing? Linux runs basically all server infrastructure where even Microsoft bent the knee for Azure & Windows Subsystem for Linux. If we are talking about Desktop Linux, it will remain popular with those building software for easier/better dev tooling & wanting to better understand the systems their production code is run on. As software becomes more intergral to our lives & knowing how to write/debug it rises, folks will slowly keep trickling in as the have for decades where more & more software is treating Linux (& the web, & since BSDs, et al. are running similar software such as GTK they are also included) as a primary target. The other desktop OSs continue to shoot themselves in the foot injecting ads into the OS or denying system-level access to the machine you own.

A would say a better focus is mobile Linux… as casual users have migrated away from desktop OSs, where Android & iOS’s walls are holding them captive.

By promoting the distros that have this as a goal, such as Mint.

I would suggest Ubuntu in this category, but... eww..

1. Idiot proofing
2. Automation, integration and premade scripts and GUI tools for the use of tools such as wine and other pain point relief software
3. Idiot proofing
4. Decrease choice fatigue by decreasing the number of choices visible by default as much as possible (Ubuntu is an okay example/starting point in my opinion)
5. Make a one-stop-shop wiki or equivalent with the specific purpose of giving explanations to non Linux-savvy people

I think that the proliferation of software/app centers is a great development when it comes to package management. Guides should mention them as an option to install whatever packages are needed, as a lot of people are clearly afraid of terminals.

Which leads to the “more GUI tools” point, which I'm sure everyone knows by now.

Also, you know how Windows update is so aggressive with getting you to update? That's for a reason.

I will be checking this thread out later for potential idiot proof distros

Automatic updates are essential. and unfortunately, it should not be an option to keep an old version of something, because through shared libraries it will hold back the entire system. fatpaks should be used for those programs.

Fortunately it's getting there, like KDE is working on it too, but it's still got a long way.

Good S0ix support. At the moment, Linux mostly fails to sleep correctly on modern S0ix laptops, which happens to be most modern laptops.

This means the battery drains incredibly fast, and S0ix features aren't being used, which is unfortunate as it has potential for quick wake, lid closed actions and limiting battery drain while asleep (since S0ix can eventually hibernate automatically from a sleep state)

Also the boot loader could be improved, systemd-boot needs to support secure boot natively so we can be rid of the slow, ancient and scary-looking GRUB.

It does just work for normal users.

Normies use the installed os. Just install a browser and office suite, thats all the need and care about.

It depends on which user and their workflow. For example, Graphics Designer use Photoshop compare to GIMP because of native CMYK for printing as well as non-destructive effects. Most people will be fine using GIMP.

I bring this up as I tend to see people on Lemmy and even in online space that talks about open source that would bitch about "normies" being too stubborn for not trying Linux or any open-source projects in general but never think about how much compromise they had to do if they do go down the open-source route.