Linux isn't suited for mainstream desktops beyond a small group of specialized users
Linux isn't suited for mainstream desktops beyond a small group of specialized users
Even if this sounds like a rant, it is an explanation and (hopefully) leads to someone at Linux development to consider what normal users need. To show I'm a good sport, I'm writing this on MX Linux 25 KDE. After months of trials and big dreams, for me Linux is only usable for: - browsing - watching YT (but no DRM streaming) - listening to mp3 That is all it can do for me with the same convenience as Windows. Basically as much as a Chromebook. Anything beyond that is either not possible, a pain to make work, fragile, and only 75% as good as the Windows alternative. I can recommend Linux to anyone who either has the limited need of what works, or to sophisticated tinkerers that don't mind the workarounds and limitations. Obviously developers also can benefit from Linux. Some of the reasons Linux isn't suitable aren't the fault of Linux - but ultimately this doesn't matter to the user. But for the vast majority of users - it is a really hard case to make. My needs aren't very special and should not be a big deal in 2025: My only really special needs are: - our work remote software has to work on desktops - I want to keep using the PCs as backup and access them via Windows-share with Free File Sync (or an alternative) I also like to add that we use Windows at work and never have serious issues since XP/W7. I also understand Linux will i nherently be different from Windows. I started Linux since I had a few pre-TPM PCs (6th/7th i7 with 16GB), got annoyed with W11 updates, curiosity and I wanted to prepare in case Windows gets worse over the years. All the PCs had W11 (even the pre-TPM ones) and worked fine. We have two AM5 PCs as desktops my wife and i use to work. and we have two media PC locations to watch YT/streaming. I also use those PCs as backup locations to the main PC. My original plan was that my wife's PC stays on W11, But the media PCs could be full Linux and my work desktop could be dual-boot. We don't play games, don't use Adobe, MS Office etc. PCs don't have dGPU. This should be the easiest Linux conversion ever. The only hard software requirement are the remote software our employers require. Fortunately they all seem to have .deb and .rpm and .tar versions (not in any repository, or flatpack). For obvious reasons those are must-haves for a desktop. Now imagine an actual professional workplace with all their software needs. Or imagine gamers and people with flashy hardware and peripherals. What I didn't know are requirements like fractional scaling and multi-monitor support. This is something one would have assumed a given in 2025. It turns out, outside Wayland this isn't a given. And most distros recommended for beginners lack this. This really is unbelievable to anyone having used Windows the last decade. Some Linux distros basically are behind the "beloved" MS Vista! I also learned, KDE with Wayland works best for me (and I realize this is subjective). I distro-hopped a lot: Ubuntu I hated, Kubuntu was slow, Mint (both Ubuntu and Debian based) only worked on some hardware, Fedora 42, Bluefin, Open Suse Tumbleweed (that was unstable) and some more. I ended up with Debian 13 KDE and later found MX Linux KDE (basically Debian, but with more GUI MX tools). This alone shows how an average noob would be overwhelmed, but i persisted through this first trial. Some distros had quite some instabilities. This is especially worrisome since i didn't even do much with them and didn't download random customization. On most of the above distros I tested my applications. I found out, my remote software kind of worked imperfectly only and was still on X11. This now seems to be resolved, but the remote software doesn't work very well at all now. So this killed my idea to use Linux on the desktop. I then gave up on the Linux desktop as a primary system. But i hoped to use them for Media. I also seem to inherit more pre-TPM PCs (have four now). How hard can it be to just run a browser? But then I learned, Linux can't handle DRM content like Netflix. Some reduce resolution, some don't work at all (Peacock). Even when this is the fault of the streaming providers, that won't help the user. Next thing I learned is that accessing a windows share isn't trivial. It took me a while to find proper tools to access the Windows folder from the Linux PCs. I can blame this on a Linux/Windows mismatch. The GUI " Smb4K" helped here. This still is a workaround since starting a backup now adds one step (starting the Smb4K bookmark). I can live with the result. Another thing most normal users will struggle with is the directory, mounting etc. You don't have human-readable drive letters, but you have mounting points. You also have to set them up to auto-mount at system start so you don't have to do that every time and have to enter a password. Fortunately I found a tool called " Gnome disks" (also works on KDE). This mounting and directory gibberish is NOT something a normal user will appreciate. Imagine a user wants to play mp3 with strawberry player. In windows i just click to the folder the music is in. In Linux.... a long procedure in research and (often) CLI. I have a desktop application to change mp3 tags that doesn't have a Linux equivalent. This seems to work in Wine. Wine isn't straightforward at all! And nothing else worked in Wine. I then tried Winboat and VM. What a pain and what a resource sucking this is. First, this all is harder to set up than a VM in Windows, and then it doesn't work well with my hardware (Remember, one excuse to recommend Linux is to revive old hardware!). This doesn't bother me, but any VM also doesn't support anti-cheat games or GPU acceleration etc. I think telling prospective Linux users that have "that one" Windows app they need to use VM is mis-leading. As you see, I made quite some effort to get relatively simple things to work. Could I have accomplished more with Terminal etc? Sure, maybe. I even had checked out quite a few Linux and terminal books from the library. But this is just not for me. Let's put it this way, I'm glad we got rid of MS DOS and I don't want to go back. I chose LTS distros since my hardware is old, and I wanted the least fuss. I was annoyed by Fedora updating 100+ things every week. How can people complain about Windows updates, but recommend rolling distros? Speed: bootup and shutdown are a bit faster on Linux. But normal use is about the same. This was true on older i3 dual core /8GB and also my AM5 12-core with 32GB. Normal use is exactly the same between Linux and W11 for my use cases. I also wanted to address the copium that all the youtubers seem to take. Linux isn't ready to be a desktop replacement for most people or companies - and may never be . I wish it was, and really hoped it could be for my limited use case. There also is a lot of misinformation or false reasons to talk people into Linux: - TPM/account requirement: if you are sophisticated enough to switch OS, you can use Rufus - Telemetry: this is an inherently good thing and can improve quality. And much can be disabled (and also contradicts some advice to switch to Mac) - Recall: this is only an OPTION on copilot-certified PCs. No need to panic for 99% of people. This just proves that 99% of youtubers are either liars, or clueless - or both. If you consciously bought a copilot-branded PC with an NPU, you wanted copilot. - AI in general: considering AI is recommended to figure out how to use Linux, this seems to be a very hypocritical reason. And you can disable AI features in W11. And at work I actually like some of the W11 AI tools and they have potential to make my life easier - Privacy: you can disable some features, and in times of smartphones, Google and Samsung smart TVs, GPS cars, it seems to very odd to focus on the tiny bit of data MS collects. - Stability: that is the funniest one, after seeing how often KDE features crashed on me for no reason. Plus Tumbleweed crashing even more features. And that all with my very limited use compared to what I do with W11. - Security W11 has Defender, firewall enabled, TPM and so on.... Most Linux distros don't even have firewall enabled and users enter sudo commands left and right that a guy on reddit told them to enter. This one clearly is won by W11 unless you believe in "security by obscurity". Maybe a virus is stopped by some missing dependency? - Windows is bloated: i gladly take the bloat if the OS automatically mounts a partition for me (and a user doesn't even know the term " mounting" ). One man's bloat is another man's feature. And most distros I tried come with totally useless and outdated libre office. And if you remove it, it warns you of dependencies it removes and a normal user may not know if this is good or bad for other software. Unless you use Arch, any distro can be considered to be bloated for some users. More copium infused arguments from Reddit/YT: - Linux is used on (also MS) servers, IOT, space stations etc.: who cares? That actually proves that Linux is not suitable outside professional users. How many Linux servers are set up by an average Joe who comes from work at McDonalds and wants to play a game and watch Netflix? - Android uses a modified Linux Kernel: true, but it also shows that a good UI, no CLI, prescribed hardware, account-requirement, and no easy mods or side-loading of apps are a successful business. Plus spying on users. Are you sure you want to use that as an argument for Linux on desktop while bashing W11 and Mac? - " My 80 year old grandpa can use it": And who set it up for him? He set up mounting points and never watches DRM streaming, nor uses any professional software? - " just use this free Linux alternative" : people want to use what they want without having to explain or compromise. I don't listen to Hanna Montana and don't want to explain why when listening to Heavy Metal. And much Linux software sucks. Even my free mp3 tag software is windows only and all the Linux alternatives I tried suck. Anyone saying the MS Office tools also work in browser clearly has never used MS office professionally. The web version of most software is very stripped down. - Freedom to do with OS what I want: OK, I want to watch DRM streaming content and want to have the freedom to use the Adobe products I paid for and need to collaborate with my peers. And I want to play the anti-cheat games. Can Linux give me this freedom? Yes, Linux allows me to swap a kernel or remove the DE, but I never used Windows and wished I could remove the DE nor needed to know what a Kernel is. - FOSS is better: How? And who cares? Does a normal user read the source code and understand it and correct it? If not, for the user is the same as an Adobe product (or a free Windows software). - Use a VM: doesn't work for many applications, uses more resources - isn't using lower spec hardware one of the reasons to use Linux? And how are you not a w11 user when you use it in a VM (just without GPU acceleration now and half your RAM, and fewer cores). Linux fans claim W11 uses too many resources. And how does giving W11 in a VM only half the resources and no GPU improve this? Wouldn't that be an argument to run W11 on bare metal? And why not turn it around and use W11 and if there is a single Linux application that does not exist in Windows, use WSL? Wouldn't that be much smarter? - dual boot: how convenient. and now I maintain two OS, need a second SSD (so much for saving old hardware) and if I switch application I just have to re-boot and hope I don't need both apps at the same time. - Terminal gives more options: no successful mass-adopted OS uses CLI. Period. Show me a single commercially successful phone, tablet, laptop, refrigerator, car or other device with a screen that uses CLI. MS-DOS and others were CLI. If that was the best method, we would not have used GUI. If CLI was better, all Windows users would use CMD/powershell or whatever else W11 offers. i have never seen a Windows user copy a file with CMD instead of using the file explorer. Many of the above can be subjective. If you think the majority of people will use CLI, you must be sniffing copium and must have never worked with normal people. 99% of users know the computer is the box with the button to turn it on and they think "windows" and that box are the same thing and anything with a GUI with "windows" that you move around is Windows. I'm not even going into the detail that one Linux requires " apt" , the other " dnf" for seemingly the same thing and you have to know the magic name of the app you want and rely on it being available. If people would even consider CLI, 99.9999% of the time they would break the system. ironically Linux users (who hate W11 AI) all of suddenly recommend LLM to find the " right" CLI commands. Of course, half the time the command is wrong, or applies to a different distro, or just came from a 6 year old reddit thread where user "bananaboy123" sent his kernel into panic. And the community.... let me start by saying I have gotten very good help on this and other forums. Kudos to the people that are smart and nice enough to help. I could have navigated W11 by just googling, but i could not have accomplished the little I did without nice people on Linux forums. BUT there also are the toxic ones that need to show others how smart they are by using a more difficult OS (hint: smart people use an easier tool). Holy cow! It is basically if I want to listen to Metallica and that doesn't work on Linux, people just tell me I should listen to Hanna Montana because that happens to be supported - and both are music, so why should I insist on Metallica? This is basically how users are treated that have a (real or perceived) need for a Windows software. And if after 30+ years of Linux you expect that there is a tool for a feature literally everyone needs, then you are called too lazy to learn CLI. I swear, there is a vocal minority of Linux users that do NOT want to increase market share because it would rob them of the superiority they seem to feel when shutting down the PC with a terminal command instead of using the button. My take on beginner distros: They all seem to be bad since they are based on Ubuntu and the inherent weaknesses and the lack of fractional scaling and multi-monitor support. Some also address the wrong issues. For example, Zorin looks like Windows. Guess ,what I set up my KDE exactly like W11 with Windows symbol and center application launcher. The look isn't the problem. And the first time a user needs to mount a partition and point their application to a mounting point called "mnt...................47278402385u3405rgjljlkfsdahgoiuiopwa908rewfkl;ds" they will go back to Windows. A windows refugee can live with the fact a GUI looks a bit different - but not with the fact that there is no GUI. And also the idea of beginner distro is bad. Windows works for beginners, and experts. I don't buy a beginner car, then graduate to an expert car (outside race track cars). Easy UI should be the goal for any OS targeted at civilians. I realize Arch or Kali are special, but anyone else is a user. My recommendation to anyone who looks into Linux for whatever reason: - really think about why you want to change - know the ups and downs of any OS. Never believe a person who says Linux, Mac, or W11 are the best or worst. - Don't be afraid to go back to the OS you came from - Don't listen to all W11 haters. Sure there are issues. But many are way blown out of proportion and some W11 issues can be overcome. - Try Linux, and my recommendation is MX Linux KDE. Where does that leave me and Linux? Well, I installed W11 IOT on my spare PCs. That OS just does 100% of my few needs and it overcomes most W11 annoyances. One Media PC will stay on Debian since that is 99% YT. If I ever watch " Peacock" , I swap in a Windows PC. But the family Media PC stays on W11. My desktop is dual boot and on weekends I may crank up the MX Linux, just because. But from a pragmatic point, there is zero reason for me or my family to use Linux. i basically keep using it to stay somewhat current, and if Windows gets worse (and Linux gets better - or things outside of Linux like DRM get better). I'm glad I did all this and learned. But i could recommend to no one to use Linux unless they have very small needs, or really know how to use it and invest the time. My plan is to watch the market and see what MS and Linux will do. In two years there will be a new Debian and I will re-assess if Linux can work for more of my uses. Anyone who read this far, thanks. Edit: 2 things that Linux gets done more user friendly than W11: - the KDE settings (while a bit busy) are easier to navigate than W11 since they have ONE setting and not like W11 where there is " Settings", " Control Panel" and so on - if hardware is supported, then the driver situation is easier on Linux since you don;'t need to install anything (but God help you if you have unsupported hardware, then W11 is much better). To be fair, W11 also is pretty good in automatically downloading drivers if needed for old hardware.
This multi-national firm I retired from has relied on Linux for about fifteen years without issues. I’ve been using it since the Windows 3.1 era, facing only minor setbacks. While there were some challenges, they weren’t significant. Unless your setup involves old hardware like an Atari Gameboy, Linux handles everything a regular user needs. Now several distros cater to gamers effectively.
Who exactly is the average user? Glad it worked for your and your company and many others. I wish it would work better for me. I would love to have an actual choice. My use case (working remotely from home, watching DRM streaming content) is pretty mainstream in 2025. If you don't do that and can live with "many things being a bit more cumbersome", then yes, Linux can work. I'm no gamer, so this is based on reading only. But there is a whole list of popular games not working. and some games requiring tweaks with different proton layers. And if you have a programmed mouse or keyboard or headset (like for gaming), you often need Windows software from the manufacturer to use all features. And drivers for the very latest hardware and features are way behind on Linux. if you use old hardware, not the latest features, don't play popular games, and don't use fancy peripherals - yes,Linux is great for gaming. And Linux fanboys tell prospective Linux users to " just don't play this and that game, and don't buy this really great hardware and all will be fine". I realize that all is outside the control of distro-makers. But as a user, I have to use what is best for me. Between W11 and Linux I pick the lesser evil. However, some of the points I made are in control of whoever makes Linux software. Give us good GUI tools, stop fragmentation - then more users will come and that will improve the Game/hardware/app situation. Not the other way around. It seems the Linux community is waiting for the commercial software/hardware manufacturers to support Linux first. That ain't gonna happen if the UI is made for the 3% only. Every W11 fanboy should root for better Mac and Linux. Every Linux fanboy should root for better Mac and W11, every Apple fanboy should root for better Linux and W11. Competition and actual choice helps all users. Yes, we have three major OS. But for my current need, I really only have one to choose from. And i don't know if this VM thing is a realistic option. Definitely not for old hardware. But considering every Linux-fan uses VM as an excuse to talk people into Linux, this VM software should be working by now. MS did a great job with WSL2. On the Linux side, they seem to have put a one-man show in charge of probably the most important need for Linux. I actually was horrified what a sh$t show Winboat is after every youtuber praised it. Holy cow, you have to install all kind of crap with CLI - this is a great start to win Windows users /s. Show them that in addition to installing the software they want to use, they have to CLI-install a bunch of other stuff. And then you provide an extremely laggy experience on a buggy software in beta state. Winboat is the best advertisement to run W11 on bare metal.
I frequently view DRM content, typically using Firefox natively. I don't stream or save files, but OBS Studio is excellent for live streaming and recording—it functions on both Windows and Mac. LibreOffice or OpenOffice are versatile office tools that can handle any MS Office apps. There are also several non-Ubuntu-based beginner-friendly operating systems available.
You notice lower quality on Linux? You upgrade to 1080p but only get 480p or worse. Some services don’t function at all. DRM is an option, but only if you accept reduced resolution for the price and avoid any restrictions. I’m unsure about your industry—accountants, bookkeepers, or similar roles? No Excel or quick accounting tools? Those free apps are fine for basic tasks, but not for professional work. Even LibreOffice isn’t perfect; file exchanges remain dominated by MS Office, and conversions aren’t flawless. Familiarity and training matter too. I don’t use OBS either. From what I’ve heard, switching from fatback to .deb versions can cause issues and bugs. Many Linux distributions lack full Windows software support, and conversion isn’t seamless. A friend mentioned watching a video about editing videos on Linux—without H.264 or H.265, they had to convert manually with HandBrake. Only about half the videos worked. So instead of using native video tools, they’d rely on a less stable Linux version and then convert with HandBrake, which adds extra steps, quality loss, and time. This is common for many Linux applications. Audio quality is usually worse than video. You seem to be trying to understand why some people stick with Windows products despite Linux’s claims. It’s a typical Linux stance: just switch to another Linux product, and if it doesn’t meet your needs, abandon the project. If you need Excel or similar tools, offer a proper VM or equivalent service—don’t push web versions or calculators. This is like using a high-performance power drill with great battery life versus a bulky corded one or a manual screwdriver: both can achieve the same result. I’m a strong supporter of LinuxCast. They’re dedicated users who rely fully on Linux and don’t criticize it harshly unless it’s clearly flawed. But most regular users, especially in accounting or similar fields, still prefer Windows for reliability and familiarity.
I struggle to understand how Kubuntu performed on modern hardware. I installed it on a Dell thin client with a Pentium Silver J5005, SATA M.2, and 8GB DDR4 2400. It ran smoothly most of the time, though it occasionally slowed down when launching large applications. On my mother's laptop (i7 8550U with 16GB dual channel), it also worked well. That said, I see similar issues elsewhere—many things feel unfinished or just function without polish. For a casual user, most tasks are fine, which is great for my non-technical family members.
Some editors lack support for modern codecs like H264 and H265, but Kdenlive remains a long-standing choice.
Admittedly, I only tested Kubuntu on a flash drive. However, Fedora, KDE Neo, and others were also tried initially and performed much better. Kubuntu was extremely slow, and since I already noticed Fedora running normally on the drive, I gave up on it. That happened before I discovered Kubuntu is essentially Ubuntu LTS. Also before I learned about snaps and all that. I'm really satisfied with my Debian choice: fast and stable (though possibly not ideal for the latest hardware). If it weren't for DRM, at least media PC applications could run on Linux. But those streaming services are what the family prefers—not mine. Not Linux's fault either.