Theoretically, when it’s up and running. How do you intend to get to that state, though? One has to install it first. And I think that alone is a massive filter.
inb4 someone says:
I did it, and I found it extremely straightforward.
I’m sure you did, Mr. “I hate how much Reddit is pandering to the braindead to the point that I joined an experimental social media platform”, I’m sure you did. Clearly, you are a qualitative sample of people who use Windows computers.
Sarcasm aside, look at how railroaded and coddling the Windows 10 installer is. I am certain a large plurality of Windows users’ initiative would completely evaporate having to navigate that. And now we want to throw a Linux installation at them?
Factor on top how the vast majority of computer users in all forms that computers take simply take for granted that the OS the computer comes with is a part of the computer. Normal people don’t upgrade OSes unless the OS itself railroads them into it (which Win10 already does aggressively whenable), or they buy a new PC that happens to come with it pre-installed. The knowledge required to negotiate an OS wipe and reinstall is not something most people possess, and I expect presenting that knowledge to them on a silver platter is something they’d hastily recoil from.
We’re in a catch-22 here. Even if all the pieces for the fabled Linux Desktop are arguably here, actually getting it into the hands of those who would benefit from it most remains prohibitive.
This is also ignoring the elephant in the room: A massive swath of these Windows PCs (Maybe even most of them? I have no backing figures, just a hunch.) are not personal computers, but office PCs that belong to a company fleet. There’s a reason Windows utterly dominates the office–Windows rules the IT sphere, at least where personal devices given to employees are concerned. Active Directory? Group Policy? Come on, guys. None of the companies who depend on these management tools are pivoting to Linux anytime soon, and you know it. And if their cheap, bulk order desk PCs don’t support Windows 11, they are absolutely getting landfilled.
The only effective mitigation I could think of would be to start a charity that takes obselesced office PCs, refurbishes them to Linux, and provides them at low or no cost to those who need a low cost or free PC. It would get Linux into more hands, but it would also strengthen a stigma that Linux is nothing more than the poor man’s OS. The Dr Thunder to Window’s Mountain Dew.
I put my home directory on another partition, because I heard very early on that it can better facilitate distro hopping. That is not the stupid part, that’s actually good advice.
The stupid part was assuming that Linux users are identified by name, and that as long as I create a user with the same name as the one on my previous install, things would Just Work.
Im reality, Linux users are integer IDs under the hood. And in my original system, my current user at the time was not the first user I had created on that system. Thus, when I set up my new OS, mounted the home partition, and set the first user to have the same name, I was immediately unable to log in. The name match meant I was trying to read my home dir, but the UID mismatch was telling me I had no permission to read it. I was feeling ballsy with the install and elected to not enable the root user, so I had an effectively bricked OS right out of the box.
I’m sure there was some voodoo I could have done to recover it on that attempt, but I just said screw it and reinstalled.
Obviously it depends on the specific kind of support and the hotline I am calling, but if it’s a complex issue, and the support hotline is a national toll free number that’s clearly outsourced to whatever crummy T1 support call center, I don’t even bother with details. It just confuses them, and I know they have a script that management will fillet them over not following even if they know what to do. Just mash A through the script and save the effort for T2 and higher.
Who knows. Sometimes that T1 script catches things you missed. It’s designed to weed out the simple stuff, after all. When you directly leapt to more advanced troubleshooting, sometimes you leave an obvious step behind.
I always start off by telling them “I know what I’m talking about, I work in IT, let’s skip the basics, I’ve tried it all already.” but they sometimes still don’t listen.
They don’t listen because, unfortunately, for every one person telling the truth, there’s probably at least three people who don’t have an iota of a clue about their system but lie about it because they think claiming they’re an expert is a cheat code to getting better support. Ruins it for the rest of us.
When it comes to closed-source software developed opaquely by for-profit corporations, particularly the huge, monolithic ones like Microsoft, I generally have the attitude that, if I do discover a problem:
They won’t take my detailed report
If they do take my report, it goes straight into a shredder bin (or a massive queue where low priority problems go to die, which may as well be the same thing)
If they do read my report, then it’s likely something they already are aware of
If they don’t know about it somehow, the issue is probably so low-priority and niche that it wouldn’t escape the backlog anyway
Probably not nearly as bleak as I make it out. But when you can’t see the process, how can you tell?
With open source projects, these things can all still happen, but at least the process is more transparent. You can see exactly where your issue is, and what’s been done to it so far, if anything. Other users can discover and vouch for your problem. And if the dev team takes pull requests, and you are willing, able, and permitted to contribute, you can make the fix yourself.
Idk, crusading against common myths is something that’s pretty hot these days. Stuff like:
Christopher Columbus didn’t actually discover America, and he was actually kind of an asshat
Bell didn’t invent the telephone, he was simply the first to patent and subsequently litigate
"Frankenstein" is the name of the scientist, not the monster
Many modern tropes about Christian Hell stem from a 17th century political satire novel
Crusading for truth in easily verifiable matters feels very on-brand for the kind of people who use Lemmy. In that light, reclaiming a negative term that’s only negative because of a false premise to describe ourselves doesn’t sound so bad. At worst, we become a little insufferable as we have to introduce the term with a “well, ackshually”, which a lot of us would probably do anyway.
Why do you have to “announce” your capabilities to beings you designed? Why do you have to onboard them to your “program” at all? If you truly are omnipotent, simply make beings that already know, and are already with the program. Assuming that is indeed what you want, why would you do anything else?
Are you throwing in extra steps for your own amusement? Just as a prank? Why? You’re omniscient. You already know how it ends. What’s amusing about it?
You are either toying with beings you created to be non-accepting and deliberately presenting conditions that won’t convince them, or you’re lacking one or both of omnipotence or omniscience.
An argument straight from the edgy teen atheist textbook, sure, but nonetheless one I have yet to see a compelling rebuttal for.
I think those of us that treat social media services this way are a minority in the grand picture. If BlueSky continues to be effective, network effect will pull in a steady stream of users, including ones that may have balked before.
It is poising itself to be a 1:1 drop-in replacement for Twitter. Federated services like Mastodon aren’t that (and aren’t trying to be).
I wholly believe that the majority of Twitter users have no interest in federated platforms as alternatives. By comparison, platforms like Mastodon feel vaguely like Twitter but more fractured and isolated. Everyone was on Twitter. Comparatively no one is on Mastodon. Discovery is awful and micromanaging instances and subscriptions is tedious busywork. “Why can’t it just be all in one convenient place, like on Twitter? This is so stupid and complicated,” I expect most would complain.
Federated platforms are loved by us because we value the fine control and we like putting in effort to curate our feeds. The complexity is the appeal. But I think it’s negative appeal to the type of person who has gotten accustomed to an algorithm doing all of that for them, and I think that’s most people. You can use federated platforms out of the box and they’ll “just work” without all the tinkering, but it will be very bland and vapid. It only becomes great when you put in work to make it great for yourself.
The thing BlueSky seems to be promising is that big, monolithic platform that Twitter was and most people want. And I think they’re the only notable player in that game, so they’ll completely corner that market. As long as they don’t trip over any footguns (and I don’t believe making the beta invite-only is one of them), I believe they’re going to succeed greatly.
At this stage that’s kind of the point. It’s an intentional demand-curbing measure. The number of people trying to switch to BlueSky outstrips hosting infrastructure. They’re scaling up slowly and carefully.
I presume once it’s out of open beta and they have the infra they need to launch properly, it will stop being invite ony.