Linux

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.

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?

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.

ChromeOS does this well because it's android, a walled garden that users aren't allowed to break. You can buy it at Walmart, and it works well.

Other big "consumer" distro projects (Debian, Ubuntu, fedora, rhel, etc) are similar, especially if you're installing stable releases on hardware that is supported.

The question for me is what do users want their OS to do? My guess is internet, office, print, scan, photos, games, updates, and get out of the way. Almost all big distros will give you that experience already, as long as you don't expect to play Windows games or pick a specialized gaming distro.

Users who want to step outside using supported repos are back to googling for a solution when things are broken, and should see themselves as part of the tech-savvy group that need to fend for themselves.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Fedora Kinote just works.

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.

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.