Anyone updated to Windows11 yet ?

[VicParticipant @vic]

Maybe a few too many generalisations in this thread. Personally I’ve tried but never owned a laptop as I don’t find them at all convenient to use. I still have a desktop machine that gets occasional use but since buying my first iPad in March 2012 the majority of my computer use is done on one. Being much cheaper than a desktop means I can upgrade more often. Also being compatible with my phone and desktop is a big plus for data syncing.

[Peter Cook 6Participant @petercook6]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 02/11/2021 17:12:12:

Whilst keen on desktops, the over 55 group are also least likely to own a laptop, which is interesting.

This over 55 (actually over 70) has some six machines – all in operation and meeting different use cases. Three tablets (all Win 10) two "desktops" and a fairly old laptop – hauled out on the occasions when I need to do a presentation somewhere. The oldest ( laptop) is probably 12 years old but has been upgraded with an SSD, the youngest is four years old. All run Windows 10 without problems.

None of the machines ( two of them Microsoft Surface tablets) meet the specification for Windows 11 so when Win 10 reaches end of life I will have to think.

My issue is that the reasons they will not run Windows 11 is not down to a technical issue, but because of policy decisions taken by Microsoft. Older processors work fine, but the installer checks and refuses to proceed, Neither do they have TPM 2.0 modules again a policy call by Microsoft. Is it to "ensure my online safety" or is it simply a mechanism to force me to buy new machines and simplify Microsoft's support issues.

Obsoleting perfectly useable machines seems to me to be going against the "greening trend. Wouldn't surprise me to see a volte-face by Microsoft (possibly when Windows 11 fails to gain the penetration) and either extend Win 10's end of life or more likely remove the arbitrary constraints on Windows 11.

[Frances IoMParticipant @francesiom58905]

The TPM module requirement is there to ensure in the future that owners of such a machine will get no control over what software it will run – maybe comparison with China is the most apt.

[Nick Clarke 3Participant @nickclarke3]

Posted by Peter G. Shaw on 04/11/2021 09:31:44:

I cannot for the life of me see why an owner of a computer should allow an organisation, an American organisation at that, to control what I may, or may not, do with my computer. To me it is like buying a car, and then being told by the manufacturer that you must use this brand of petrol, and no other. Anyone trying that on with me would be told in no uncertain terms to "xxxx xxx".

But Apple and Android both expect you to download software from their online stores or, in the case of Apple to register the software if bought retail.

So why all the fuss when Microsoft wish to do the same?

A software licence is just that – a licence to use it according to their terms and not an outright purchase and has basically been so from the beginning.

Linux is very definitely not free for you to do what you want with – the freedom is explicitly defined in the licence and at any time any software author could remove their creation from the public domain, or start to charge for updates. I doubt many would, but the option is always there.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Nick Clarke 3 on 04/11/2021 14:27:59:

Posted by Peter G. Shaw on 04/11/2021 09:31:44:

…

…

Linux is very definitely not free for you to do what you want with – the freedom is explicitly defined in the licence and at any time any software author could remove their creation from the public domain, or start to charge for updates. I doubt many would, but the option is always there.

Not so. The GNU General Public Licence is typical. Amongst many other provisions designed to stop lockdowns, the licence says the writer must make the source code available and allow 'copy left' development of it. Thereafter, anyone is free to replicate or adapt the original source code provided they also distribute it under the same terms. Developers are allowed to profit from it, but not to restrict or prevent anyone else from developing the original code or it's successors.

Stopping proprietary ownership of software has many benefits. It allowed the Android developers to adapt and race-tune the Linux kernel to run on mobile devices without getting entangled in legal and financial complications with a business partner. In return, Android source code is freely available on the web.

Dave

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Nick,

The option may be there, but I do feel that any software author who decided to charge for their (Linux based) software would end up cutting their own throat, so to speak. One of the attractions of Linux is the number of different versions, and should the authors of my favourite distro, Linux Mint, try it on, then I for one would immediately go elsewhere. Indeed, although I don't know what the current situation is, there has been an attempt by Canonical, whose software Mint is based on, to force users to use a locked down software system. However, Clement LeFevre, the, I suppose you could say, controlling author of Mint, has said that Mint is absolutely NOT going down that road. I'm sorry, I don't know the correct terms for what I am saying, you may know better, but it is sufficient for me that LeFevre has said no. What will untimately happen I know not, but as I use the Mate version of Mint, perhaps I may have to go over to Debian.

Removing the software from the public domain is indeed a problem. I mention in my first post that I was using a DOS based database. In order to run this programme under Linux Mint v. 19.x, I am currently using DOSEmu, an emulator which has not been updated since 2013 (I think). Effectively it is Abandonware, yet it is still downloadable and works satisfactorily on all versions of Mint from v.13 to v19. Unfortunately, it is not downloadable in a ready-to-run format for Mint 20+, although I am given to understand that it may work if specifically compiled by the v. 20 user. That, I'm sorry to say, is currently above my paygrade!

Peter G. Shaw

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Just a few more general comments.

I haven't got a so-called smart phone, tablet, ipad, or anything of that ilk. I don't want one either. Furthermore, when I leave my house, I wish to be incommunicado. I certainly have no wish to walk the streets with a "thing" clamped to my ear. I do have a small mobile 'phone, but in the main it is there in case I need to call for assistance. FWIW, some years ago, whilst driving I developed Menieres with the commensurate vertigo and were it not for having a mobile 'phone I would have been in extreme difficulty. (Just as a matter of interest, I eventually had two operations involving the use of gentamycin to stop the vertigo. This was successful although the downside is that that ear is now just about useless, a small price to pay to get my life back.)

I use laptops, three of them at the moment. I have had desktop boxes, large, noisy devices. But the main advantage of the laptop over the desktop is their portability. Plus, their screen size puts the so-called smartphones etc to shame.

Cheers,

Peter G. Shaw

[Nick Clarke 3Participant @nickclarke3]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 04/11/2021 15:09:39:

 

Not so. The GNU General Public Licence is typical. Amongst many other provisions designed to stop lockdowns, the licence says the writer must make the source code available and allow 'copy left' development of it. Thereafter, anyone is free to replicate or adapt the original source code provided they also distribute it under the same terms. Developers are allowed to profit from it, but not to restrict or prevent anyone else from developing the original code or it's successors.

Stopping proprietary ownership of software has many benefits. It allowed the Android developers to adapt and race-tune the Linux kernel to run on mobile devices without getting entangled in legal and financial complications with a business partner. In return, Android source code is freely available on the web.

Dave

This article on GNU General Public Licence by Richard Stallman clearly states that software can be made non-free giving the example of a non-free distribution of X-Windows (although this distribution was later re-licenced as free) and argues against this and suggests that copyleft is to be encouraged but cannot be insisted on.

Gnu.org

There are several examples where combining free software becomes part of a chargeable package. If you are asked to pay for another part of a package that is someone's own non-copyright work – for example an installer for a GNUed program where you are unable to install it from that source without buying the installer and the free part in a package. The reference above gives a lot more.

Edited By Nick Clarke 3 on 04/11/2021 17:15:55

Edited By Nick Clarke 3 on 04/11/2021 17:23:34

Edited By Nick Clarke 3 on 04/11/2021 17:25:39

[Harry WilkesParticipant @harrywilkes58467]

Nick

One of the things with Linux is your offered updates however it's up to you if you wish to install said update.

H

[clivelParticipant @clivel]

Posted by Nick Clarke 3 on 04/11/2021 14:27:59:

But Apple and Android both expect you to download software from their online stores or, in the case of Apple to register the software if bought retail.

So why all the fuss when Microsoft wish to do the same?

Actually, that is not strictly true. I am the author of a cross-platform (Windows, Mac, Linux) open-source software package that is fairly popular in its niche market.

It is not available from the Apple store, yet users have no problem downloading and installing it from my website. Worst case is that they get a warning message that is from an unidentified developer.

The procedure on Windows prior to Win11 was not that different, however, I did first have to go to the trouble of submitting my software to the various manufacturers of anti-virus software for "whitelisting" prior to release.

To my mind, for MS to try and force users to only install software from the MS store is primarily a cash grab. MS does offer the option of distributing free software via the MS store, but only if I want to pay them for the privilege which is not going to happen.

So any user who would like to continue using my software after switching to Win 11 would first have to leave S Mode which prevents one from installing any software that does not come from the MS Store and also prevents one from running any browser but Microsoft Edge.

S mode is only available on Win 11 Home Edition. Leaving S Mode is a permanent change, once one has left there is no going back.

Clive

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Lookingg at this thread as a non-laptop owning, non-"smart"-'phone owing user of a standard PC with WIN 7 Pro and hoping to stay that way for as long as possible….

I can't help thinking from your discussions that the more our lives become entangled with computers, the more deeply we will need understand operating-systems and their configuring, before we can actually do on them what we did relatively easily whilst blissfully ignorant of such background things, only a few "Windozes" ago.

It's almost becoming analogous to a car-dealer expecting all his customers not only to be competent motorists but also have a thermodynamics (or electrical theory!) degree before even driving off the forecourt.

'

As for Windoze Ten…. I did try it. Oh dear! Not only scrappy, gimmicky and unintuitive:

It took me only two or three minutes to use MS' offer to revert the computer to 7, but two or three hours to repair the damage 10 had wrought.

MS now keeps begging me to install 'Edge' (W10's e-post system?) but I cannot trust it. It also tries to persuade me to install Win-Zip, but I am not renting costly software of no clear use to me.

[Anonymous]

Posted by Nick Clarke 3 on 04/11/2021 14:27:59:

A software licence is just that – a licence to use it according to their terms and not an outright purchase and has basically been so from the beginning.

… and if you were around at the "beginning" (of home computers) you'll know just what a fuss it caused when Microsoft announced that!

[AdrianRParticipant @adrianr18614]

Well, I doubt I will go to W11, spending a couple of thousand pounds to get a new gaming rig is not on the cards.

Professionally I worked with Linux, and the only reason my home PC is windows is that I play games and inertia.

Now games and applications are far more likely to have a Linux version or Wine/Proton will allow a Windows program to run on Linux. So I expect at the end of W10 support I will switch to Linux.

[Nick Clarke 3Participant @nickclarke3]

Posted by Peter Greene on 05/11/2021 00:57:41:

Posted by Nick Clarke 3 on 04/11/2021 14:27:59:

A software licence is just that – a licence to use it according to their terms and not an outright purchase and has basically been so from the beginning.

… and if you were around at the "beginning" (of home computers) you'll know just what a fuss it caused when Microsoft announced that!

My experience with mainframe computers goes back to the early 1970s where software was leased and not even licenced. I used microcomputers from 1981 and later in that year bought my first 'home' computer which used Microsoft software.

Microsoft did not introduce the concept of licencing it was almost universal practice with Lotus, Ashton Tate and the several owners of Wordstar as examples all using a similar licence approach.

The fact that even today you buy a software licence and not the software should give it away – only the terms might differ.

[Nick Clarke 3Participant @nickclarke3]

In the 90s I was HOD ICT & Computing at a large college and we started to install Novell networking in a small way in two computer rooms. I was awaiting one of the key disks to install the second of the two servers and so installed them both with the single key disk I had.

A couple of weeks later no second key disk had arrived so I rang Novell and said 'I am waiting for the key disk when will it arrive? In the mean time I have had to install on two networks' Brrr Click 'Hello Software Piracy section. You know you have broken the law!!' – all in less than a couple of seconds!

Anyway after we chatted he calmed down and accepted that Novell had let the college down – but he then offered 'Would you like me to come in and give a talk to your students about software piracy?'

Knowing how many disks were passed round from person to person I politely said no!

[OldironParticipant @oldiron]

Posted by Peter G. Shaw on 04/11/2021 15:44:56:

Nick,

The option may be there, but I do feel that any software author who decided to charge for their (Linux based) software would end up cutting their own throat, so to speak. One of the attractions of Linux is the number of different versions, and should the authors of my favourite distro, Linux Mint, try it on, then I for one would immediately go elsewhere. Indeed, although I don't know what the current situation is, there has been an attempt by Canonical, whose software Mint is based on, to force users to use a locked down software system. However, Clement LeFevre, the, I suppose you could say, controlling author of Mint, has said that Mint is absolutely NOT going down that road. I'm sorry, I don't know the correct terms for what I am saying, you may know better, but it is sufficient for me that LeFevre has said no. What will untimately happen I know not, but as I use the Mate version of Mint, perhaps I may have to go over to Debian.

Removing the software from the public domain is indeed a problem. I mention in my first post that I was using a DOS based database. In order to run this programme under Linux Mint v. 19.x, I am currently using DOSEmu, an emulator which has not been updated since 2013 (I think). Effectively it is Abandonware, yet it is still downloadable and works satisfactorily on all versions of Mint from v.13 to v19. Unfortunately, it is not downloadable in a ready-to-run format for Mint 20+, although I am given to understand that it may work if specifically compiled by the v. 20 user. That, I'm sorry to say, is currently above my paygrade!

Peter G. Shaw

Mint does indeed charge for business & enterprise use as do several other distros including Redhat etc. The Mint 20+ release installs at a screen resolution of 2560×1600 which is a problem on some smaller /older monitors.. The free versions are just basic with no support if your system goes tixs up and as said can be withdrawn at any time. . I use Mint "trying to evaluate it to replace Windows" on one of my PC's and feel that it is still lacking in ease of use and Apps compared to Windows. Also some of my input devices will not run out of the box as they do in Windows so could be a problem. I will persevere with it for a while and maybe try another distro.

regards

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Nick Clarke 3 on 04/11/2021 17:06:53:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 04/11/2021 15:09:39:

Not so. The GNU General Public Licence is typical. Amongst many other provisions designed to stop lockdowns, the licence says the writer must make the source code available and allow 'copy left' development of it. Thereafter, anyone is free to replicate or adapt the original source code provided they also distribute it under the same terms. Developers are allowed to profit from it, but not to restrict or prevent anyone else from developing the original code or it's successors.

Stopping proprietary ownership of software has many benefits. It allowed the Android developers to adapt and race-tune the Linux kernel to run on mobile devices without getting entangled in legal and financial complications with a business partner. In return, Android source code is freely available on the web.

Dave

This article on GNU General Public Licence by Richard Stallman clearly states that software can be made non-free giving the example of a non-free distribution of X-Windows (although this distribution was later re-licenced as free) and argues against this and suggests that copyleft is to be encouraged but cannot be insisted on.

Gnu.org

There are several examples where combining free software becomes part of a chargeable package. If you are asked to pay for another part of a package that is someone's own non-copyright work – for example an installer for a GNUed program where you are unable to install it from that source without buying the installer and the free part in a package. The reference above gives a lot more.

…

Your original post said: 'Linux is very definitely not free for you to do what you want with..' I say the statement is misleading because most of Linux is freely available. While there are exceptions, the kernel and most applications are open – millions of lines of code.

The owner of proprietary code can apply terms and conditions or remove the software from the market. Open software really is different. Anyone can fork an open software project from the source code. If a vendor withdraws, someone else can pick up the reins.

Proprietary software is unusual on Linux. I currently only have one, which is QCAD Pro. QCAD Pro isn't locked down in the same way as, say, Fusion360, because Ribbonsoft maintain an Open Community Edition of QCAD, and LibreCAD is an independent fork of it. Everything else, Word Processor, Spreadsheet, Databases, IDE, compilers, firewall, 3D CAD, you name it, is open. I can choose to install software by compiling it from source code, rather than a binary package, and the source code can be modified by me.

Open source freedom is something of an Achilles Heel on the desktop because it leads to multiple distributions for which not all software has been compiled and bundled, plus cosmetic differences. New users are liable to be confused.

On the other hand, Open Source is brilliant for developers of Media Centres, Network Equipments, Mechatronics, Super-computers, process-control and other forms of embedded computing. Everyone reading this post probably does so thanks to a Linux-based Router connected to the Internet: it contains a stripped down version of the operating system with some core networking and management software. Sits in a box and just works. Other routers available, they too are mostly Linux, source code available. Ordinary users don't care what's in our Router, or Engine Management Unit, but freedom matters to the developers…

Dave

[Mark Simpson 1Participant @marksimpson1]

Dave (S.O.D.)

Following up on your comment…

"Proprietary software is unusual on Linux"

As a long time (1985) mech engineer working for CAD software vendors I can tell you that there are really good reasons for this…. And our software is (and has been) built on most flavours of Unix inc Linux (nor forgetting Primos, Dec VMS, OSF, Sunos, Irix ) as well as lot's of versions of Windows.

1. The expectation of Linux is it's free (everyone needs some return on investment)
2. The variations in the many Distros of linux (and their piecemeal installation) means that it's a nightmare to support (and you need to do this for free)… Expect O/S based support calls to be 300-500% higher than for a proprietary O/S
3. There are no (nearly) no commercial users of Linux for User applications (Loads of servers)
4. We have commercial unix users, none of them plan to move to Linux despite it being functionally identical.
5. Opensource is fine (In theory), but how many people really have the skills to build large applications when there are platform and compiler evolutions? We have a few computer science (double tefal head) folk who do this stuff

We use linux internally a lot, but it's got few commercial possibilities outside of the server world (at the moment)

Linux, great for servers and personal use (if you've got the time) commercial applications non starter (at least today)

Mark

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Posted by Mark Simpson 1 on 05/11/2021 10:53:3

3. There are no (nearly) no commercial users of Linux for User applications (Loads of servers)
Mark

Almost all TV Set Top Boxes and many routers/modems have a Linux base, although ARM cores get waves of popularity. Often it starts in a product because the sort of person who does the software development is also the sort of person who downloads a new version of Linux at home every week.

[clivelParticipant @clivel]

Posted by Bazyle on 05/11/2021 19:37:26:

Posted by Mark Simpson 1 on 05/11/2021 10:53:3

3. There are no (nearly) no commercial users of Linux for User applications (Loads of servers)
Mark

Almost all TV Set Top Boxes and many routers/modems have a Linux base, although ARM cores get waves of popularity. Often it starts in a product because the sort of person who does the software development is also the sort of person who downloads a new version of Linux at home every week.

Having spent a good deal of my professional life developing embedded products, working on both hardware and software, from 8-bit microcontrollers without an operating system to complex products running embedded Linux, I can assure you in every single case where embedded Linux was used, it was almost always because it made solid business sense.

Despite many years of concerted effort Microsoft has failed to capture the embedded market with the various versions of embedded Windows it has released, including for ARM processors. Instead, Linux has captured the lion's share of that market because of a combination of technical and commercial merit, and not because some spotty nerd in his mother's basement enjoys playing with it.

As for the assertion by Mark that there are no commercial users of Linux for user applications, again that is not really true. One of the first applications I installed after switching to Linux some 10 years ago was Eagle CAD for PCB layout, which was a commercial product that I bought and paid for.

The main reason for a lack of commercial software on Linux has nothing to do with the expectation by Linux users that they want everything free, in my experience Windows, Mac, and Android users are no different, but instead, because the Linux desktop with a smaller market share offers less opportunity for profit-driven commercial software companies
– a bit of a catch-22, Linux market share on the desktop is hampered by a lack of commercial software, and commercial software is not being developed for Linux because of the smaller potential market.

Clive

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By clivel on 05/11/2021 20:17:40

[Mark Simpson 1Participant @marksimpson1]

Bazyle, I accept your TV Set Top Boxes on linux as an application, but IMO it's acting as a server perhaps? its certainly a very specific application, nothing like the Linux v Windows on desktop or laptop (which is where this started..)

Clivel: I did not intend to totally discount Linux as an "desktop/laptop" environment, I have a desktop with it on as well as a Windows laptop (works)… I was trying to say that we, and most of the bigger CAD vendors with any history in Unix, have offered our products commercially on Linux and found few or no takers; annoying when you've spent the money to build, test and deliver it…(but that's the software business)
There is a ton of linux embedded in things and web servers are surely one of the biggest applications – the lack of a software license cost is a significant factor in these things.

My best guess as to why it's unpopular commercially, except for very specific applications, is the fragmented nature of Linux. The distro's come and go really quickly and what runs on one particular installation will nearly run on another, then you spend some time on forums deciding to add this or that package. The differences are smaller than the differences between say the Solaris and Irix of 20 years ago, but companies hate uncertainty and want to reduce risk…

Whatever I don't think that Bill Gates et al need to worry about their superyacht mooring fees just yet!

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Mark,

I cannot argue against you about the usage of Linux, but what I can say is that ever since I migrated to Linux, I have had very little trouble with my computers. Furthermore, with one exception, an ageing HP printer, I was, until relatively recently, using old equipment, some of which Microsoft said wouldn't run on W7. In other words, scrap your perfectly good equipment, buy new, and then install Microsoft's rubbish.

Over the years before moving to Linux, I used Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95OSR2, W98 & 2000. All of these at various times gave me the infamous BSOD. XP, I found very good, and worked well as long as I did not go poking about too much in the Registry.

However, I objected to being told by Microsoft that my equipment was too old or that my software was out of date, especially when it was doing all that I needed. Also, I did not like Microsoft's business practices, something which the EU and others with more clout than me, also appeared to dislike, witness the hefty fines sustained by Microsoft.

Thus, when XP stopped being supported, I seriously started looking at Linux, and eventually ended up with Mint 13 which met all my requirements. Prior to that, I had dropped Internet Explorer in favour of Firefox, Outlook Express in favour of Thunderbird, I had never used Microsoft's Office Suite for the simple reason that I could see no reason for paying for facilities which I would never use, hence opted for Lotus Smartsuite as being a cheaper option, but then dropped Smartsuite for Open (later Libre) Office, all of these being the Windows versions. In effect, I did a partial transfer to Open Source before fully migrating to Linux. Doing it this way, made the transfer much easier as the major components were already compatible in that all I had to do was download & install the Linux versions followed by transferring the data across.

Since then I have watched, and read about, all the shenanigans caused by Microsoft's updates. With one exception, a kernal upgrade, none of my Mint upgrades have caused me any problems. With the duff kernal upgrade, I think I ended up reloading the OS.

I have had problems, caused in the main by my refusal to change two programs to Linux versions. These are a DOS based database which even Microsoft won't allow to be easily used on the home versions of W10, but I've now got running satisfactorily via DOSEmu under Linux; and secondly an ageing, eg 2006 version, of a W32 bit CAD program which initially had problems under Wine, but now runs almost perfectly since Wine was upgraded to v.5. In both these instances, the programmes do everything that I want, and I cannot see any justification in scrapping them in favour of something more modern.

The final comment is that under Windows, I was forced to run security programs for the safety of my machines and data. This no longer happens, in part due to the method by which Linux works. I do, now, use GUFW (Graphical Uncomplicated FireWall) but only because I was given Facebook's Portal last Christmas by my elder son, and having a deep distrust of Facebook, I took steps to prevent it accessing my computers.

I don't like Microsoft, or indeed any of these American Corporations, I simply don't trust their motives. Linux may not be perfect, but in my opinion its a darn sight better than the alternative.

Regards,

Peter G. Shaw

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Mark Simpson 1 on 05/11/2021 10:53:35:

…

Linux, great for servers and personal use (if you've got the time) commercial applications non starter (at least today)

Mark

Much depends on perspective! Aristotle wrote that our understanding of the world was as if it was based on watching shadows on the wall of a cave. Clues and hints, not absolute truths. Today moderns say we have letter-box views, also recognising the risk of drawing conclusions based on only some of the facts.

I suggest this months graph of operating system popularity tells another story:

Linux appears twice. The red line at the bottom is Desktop Linux, which supports Mark's comments. However, the Orange Line shows Android to be about 10% more popular than Windows. The next graph shows Android's astonishing growth. 350 billion users at the end of last year.

What's going on? Android is the most popular user operating system in the world, supporting lots of money making Apps. And it's based on Linux. You might think of operating systems fighting a war on many fronts. Microsoft won the battle for the Desktop but – so far – they've lost the battles for supercomputing, servers, embedded devices, and – most important – mobile computing. Microsoft's attempts to get into mobile telephony and smart computing failed. A major source of profit is out of reach.

At the moment Microsoft are making money, but – like everyone else – the future is challenging. For a long time desktop made big money. Not so today because the market is saturated. New money has to come from something else and at the moment the growth is in mobile computing, the Internet of Things and the Cloud.

Linux has a big advantage in these new markets. The operating system is almost irrelevant to Cloud users, who won't know or care if Linux is behind the scenes.

There's no particular shortage of developers: most of academia teaches and develops code with one of the UNIXs. Many programmers start by learning Linux and transfer their skills to Windows or iOS later.

Don't underestimate Double Tefal Heads – even I can program in Windows, Linux, and MacOS. Its not difficult to write new programs that will run on all three: converting old code is harder…

Dave

[Harry WilkesParticipant @harrywilkes58467]

It would have been interesting to have seen what would have happened if linux had been the first OS on out computers would it have gone the same way as Betamax I think it would have what most people want is simplicity

H ( Linux user)

[Mark Simpson 1Participant @marksimpson1]

Dave S.O.D. the original poster was asking about windows 11… so I was replying about desktops and laptops…
at least we can agree that in that domain Windows (with all of its faults) has the biggest raft of applications. Embedded in things, and as Virtual Servers, there is lots of linux it's just not commercially replacing windows on desktops and laptops…

Using Android to expand the Linux User base is kind of sneaky… The same compiled code does not run directly on both because Android has a (significantly) modified kernel, Google release some of it under their AOSP (Android Open Source Project) but great chunks of phone related stuff is missing…. It's "kind of Open Source" but not really; google want their slice of the action (and get it) it's certainly some kind of Unix.

Trying to release stuff on IoS (apple) is as far from open source as you can get… If apple don't approve it then it doesn't get out there…

[Author]

Posts