• Microsoft removes guide on converting Microsoft accounts to Local, pushing for Microsoft sign-ins.
  • Instructions once available, now missing - likely due to company’s preference for Microsoft accounts.
  • People may resist switching to Microsoft accounts for privacy reasons, despite company’s stance.
  • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    I did manage to switch to Linux. I can understand though why people are hesitant, there are still things that are tough in Linux, or near impossible in some cases. That’s despite having used Linux on and off for years.

    • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s because what people need to understand is that fundamentally Linux is not a drop in replacement for Windows, its not some open source copy. It’ll never have full software compatibility, it’ll never run the same, it’ll never look exactly the same, and it’ll never be the same. The sooner people accept that the sooner people understand what their options are. For me that’s an advantage, I like the UI on DEs like Cosmic, I love the Unix filesystem, I love the terminal and how powerful it is, I love package managers, and I love the customizability of it all.

      • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think something needs to be identical to Windows to be a good replacement for it. I think there should be a replacement for Windows, and distributions like Linux Mint are that replacement for some people.

        I also think that parts of the Linux ecosystem have major problems. Not necessarily problems with the kernel itself, but problems with the surrounding software like programs and user interfaces. Wider application support would be a start. Some distributions and parts of modern Linux systems can be unnecessarily complex or downright esoteric. Some features like HDR have very poor support, and are difficult to enable/setup where they are supported. It’s also difficult for developers to publish to Linux because of the wide variety of different Linux systems. Flatpaks and snaps help with this obviously but have divisive in the Linux community for one reason or another.

        • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I don’t think something needs to be identical to Windows to be a good replacement for it.

          I said drop in replacement

          Wider application support would be a start.

          No organization is willing to pay companies to support Linux

          Some distributions and parts of modern Linux systems can be unnecessarily complex or downright esoteric. Some features like HDR have very poor support, and are difficult to enable/setup where they are supported.

          That’s because organizations like the Linux foundation primarily serve enterprise and server customers, they only need a good enough UI so that’s what desktop users get. Nobody is paying money for Linux and few people donate.

          It’s also difficult for developers to publish to Linux because of the wide variety of different Linux systems. Flatpaks and snaps help with this obviously but have divisive in the Linux community for one reason or another.

          That’s because the current system allows distribution maintainers to decide if they want their distro to be bleeding edge or stable.

          TLDR: Desktop Linux users get the scraps of enterprise and server Linux

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            No organization is willing to pay companies to support Linux

            Well that’s a lie. Lots of companies use Linux servers, Linux embedded devices, even Linux desktops for programmers or engineers. Android devices are everywhere too.

            That’s because organizations like the Linux foundation primarily serve enterprise and server customers, they only need a good enough UI so that’s what desktop users get. Nobody is paying money for Linux and few people donate.

            One of the most common uses of Linux is smartphones. Chromebooks are also fairly popular. It’s more that the kind of people that use Linux desktops aren’t happy with smartphone like functionality and customisation.

            The better question is why aren’t people supporting desktop Linux? We have increasing market share after all. My guess is a combination of fragmentation and the fact that the user base aren’t the kind of people they want to sell too. It’s hard to sell MS Office for Linux to your average Linux enthusiast who might even be an Open Source purist. They are also more likely to jailbreak or pirate your product.

            • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Well that’s a lie. Lots of companies use Linux servers, Linux embedded devices

              I mentioned that

              even Linux desktops for programmers or engineers. Android devices are everywhere too. One of the most common uses of Linux is smartphones.

              They make money because they’re proprietary, sell peoples info, and because of that they represent everything the free software movement fights against. I use Linux because it supports the free software movement, not the other way around.

              The better question is why aren’t people supporting desktop Linux?

              It’s a combination of a few factors, developers are pressured into not asking for donations (users need to actively find their website to donate), the vast majority of Linux software is free of price, and people don’t want to pay money for their operating system.

              • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                It’s a combination of a few factors, developers are pressured into not asking for donations (users need to actively find their website to donate), the vast majority of Linux software is free of price, and people don’t want to pay money for their operating system.

                I am talking about businesses supporting the Linux desktop with software, not about the OS devs themselves.

                They make money because they’re proprietary, sell peoples info, and because of that they represent everything the free software movement fights against. I use Linux because it supports the free software movement, not the other way around.

                This is the reason why most businesses don’t want to support Linux.

                • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I am talking about businesses supporting the Linux desktop with software, not about the OS devs themselves.

                  What money is there in desktop Linux? Companies don’t support things without expecting something in return.

                  • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Given there are quite a lot more people using Linux than there used to be I imagine a fair bit. That’s only going to increase as Linux users keep increasing. Linux users still buy things like Video Games, Spotify subscriptions, and potentially other software products too like Jetbrains IDEs.