Linux surpasses the Mac among Steam gamers

Exactly. And MacBook users don't choose MacOS either.

For many non tech savvy users if you give them a Linux laptop with any modern DE, they can't tell the difference.

But it seems these filters are almost always cherry picked against Linux for some reason I sincerely don't know.

They would, as soon as they try to use any software most people on their circle of friends use, CD/DVD coming on the hardware they bought at the mall, or any computer magazine besides Linux Format and similar.

Except many if not most (at least in the past) chose a Mac for the software first and the hardware second. I know I did. And I’ve also been using desktop Linux begrudgingly beside it, ever since it existed. Windows too, though I’ve lately removed any need for that.

> Exactly. And MacBook users don't choose MacOS either.

I'm not sure what would make you an authoritative source on why people by Macs or where you're sourcing your thoroughly researched data, but I can tell you I purchased an MBA to run macOS and the software that runs on macOS. Or like the Intel N100 mini PC I purchased explicitly to run proxmox + OPNSense. Or like my Windows laptop to have a mobile lab.

I pick the machine based on the software I want to run. I'm sure we can find one, perhaps if we stretch it, two other people on HN who also purchase machines based off of the OS/software they need to run.

My dad exclusively use ie(due to activex/flash in some internal corp site), excel, and word on the laptop I bought for him.

And the only thing he use it for entertainment is browser (for reading novels)

If I am managed to setup all these properly on other system. I doubt him would ever notice a difference.

Non tech user just can't care about what system he is using less. All matter for him are tools that help him to finish his work.

What about dvd/cd or install some new softwares? Well, I am the in house tech support.

That is the thing, he only manages that thanks to the in house tech support, he would be lost without it.

Many on HN might be intimately familiar with macOS internals, but we are not in any way or form the average users. Running OPNSense on Proxmox definitely sets the "outlier" sticky bit.

Most users do not watch WWDC and do not know what OS release notes are. They don't know what the boundary between their web browser and their OS is, and macOS just becomes "the thing that nags them to update it" - a nag that users unfortunately still ignore, as evident by my recent confrontation with Big Sur machines.

Well, in 2023 a majority of that would be web or electron apps so they might not be able to tell the difference. They would be equally stumped at the sight of a CD/DVD no matter their choice of OS, as machines have not shipped with optical drives in ages.

> My dad exclusively use ie(due to activex/flash in some internal corp site), excel, and word on the laptop I bought for him.

That was a majority use-case between 2005-2015. Now it's a niche case (yeah, even if absolute numbers are still big enough, relatively speaking it's a niche)

Oh I completely agree with you that folks on HN are likely to be of a particular mindset when it comes to technology purchases.

However, that doesn't mean that every non-HN user out there buys the aluminum-shell-in-the-vague-shape-of-a-laptop and doesn't make a conscious choice.

My point still stands. The GP doesn't have the data to back up the assertion.

But at that point then who gives a damn what the “desktop” or other market share is because it’s essentially meaningless and can be manipulated into whatever you want it to be. Add in the fact that a lot of what you run whether SaaS or even a shell is in a server somewhere else. The actual client operating system is increasingly about as relevant for a lot of use cases as what software your terminal ran a few decades ago.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make

Most normal people don't buy new software all the time, most of them like to keep their old copies going as much as possible.

Most desktop computers still do, and in alternative there are USB stick variants.

Which doesn't change the fact regarding what drivers, for what set of OSes, are supported out of the box.

> a nag that users unfortunately still ignore

For good reason. Running those updates requires restarting the computer, which in turn means you have to get your working state setup again after each update. People use computers to get things done, and running updates often has the opposite effect.

There is also no data to back up the opposite assertion. It would be rather surprising to see comments on HN based on hard statistical data - an implicit "IMO" prefix makes sense to apply in most human discussions.

> That does not mean that every non-HN user...

Not every - but I do believe it is still the majority. There are a lot of people out there, and the knowledge required to make the aforementioned OS choice is niche.

This is not implying stupidity, just that there are many trades and interests out there, and subscribing to ours specifically is not a given.

Desktop computers are unusual nowadays, despite being a decent option. They are gone from non-gaming retail stores from what I can tell, so it's much more of an active decision to get.

It is true that if you try to reuse your 2003 Office install you will fail, but such unsupported and deprecated software will also cause trouble on a modern PC. Even if it runs, using an old version of Outlook is extremely unsafe...

Common end-user hardware does not require drivers nowadays either (not even printers due to IPPAnywhere and co., even though manufacturers still ship them for some reason).

Things are always hairy outside that though - macOS no longer permit kernel extensions, and you know you are in a dark place if DKMS gets involved on Linux.

> There is also no data to back up the opposite assertion.

Which is why I made no assertion with a percentage.

> but I do believe it is still the majority

What makes you believe that? Thousands of data points? Hundreds? Tens? The handful of people around you? Certainly not statistics.

Would it help if I used English?

That and updates are going to be the time where computers stop working. If you don't change anything, it will generally continue to work fine for years. My experience with MacOS at work was that I could expect to spend at least a day fixing whatever broke after each major OS version update, so naturally I'd put off doing it for as long as possible.

Even if things continue to work, updates may come with UI changes that disrupt the user's workflow (and the trend tends to be to remove or hide functionality and make things less useful/information dense as time goes by). Unless there's something you specifically want, modern software updates tend to be high risk low reward from the user's perspective.

Incidentally this is why I prefer desktop Linux. With the exception of Firefox turning into Chrome over the years, FOSS software tends to be remarkably stable. My home computer feels like it hasn't changed at all in almost a decade. I never have to fiddle with it.

You are indeed making the opposite assertion by implying the statement is false, hypocritically with no information to back it up. By your standards, your counter is entirely invalid. "I do not know" is how you avoid making an assertion.

Ridiculous standards aside, I find it an extremely reasonable to assert that given more than 7 billion people across vast areas, interests, ideologies and jobs, and given the vast hi.an knowledge, expertise and culture, that any particular interest or knowledge is only shared by a small subset.

What was surprising to me was that having an Ubuntu Laptop and a Windows 11 PC side by side that Ubuntu needs about twice as often restarts compared to Windows. I only have that setup 3-4 months, so it could be an outlier though.

macOS does not permit kernel extensions, because contrary to GNU/Linux they take ABI and kernel stability seriously, and are incrementally turning the OS into a proper microkernel, with all extensions running in userspace.

> You are indeed making the opposite assertion by implying the statement is false

That's not at all what they said. All they're saying -- correctly -- is that you are asserting some sort of magnitude ("majority") without any data to back it up.

I would guess, though, from my personal experience, that you are probably right that a majority of people just get whatever laptop with whatever OS they're used to because that's what their parents/school/employer gave them to use, and when it's time for a new machine, they just get whatever they had before. But I don't think this is a very large majority.

> I find it an extremely reasonable to assert that given more than 7 billion people [...] that any particular interest or knowledge is only shared by a small subset.

Probably true, but also remember that OS choice isn't always driven by interest. A macOS user may get frustrated with the state of gaming on the Mac, and decide to switch to Windows. Or a Windows user might really want or need to use an application only available on macOS (though I expect this sort of thing doesn't happen as often anymore, since more and more of people's computer use ends up being through a web browser). A Windows user might also buy an iPhone or iPad and get into the Apple ecosystem enough that they decide to switch to macOS.

Certainly some people who do switch OSes don't do so because they've made an independent choice; they do so because they switch employers, and something else is the only thing available, or a friend evangelizes another OS to them to the point they want to give it a try, and end up liking it.

Regardless, many people these days don't even have a laptop or desktop computer, and do all their computing on their phone or tablet. I think that 7 billion number gets a lot smaller when you consider that. (Also, as an aside, the current world population is estimated to be a bit over 8 billion now, not 7.)

Do you have a source on Apple working to turn macOS into a proper microkernel? Couldn't find anything. Certainly Mach is a microkernel, but Darwin very much isn't. I do know that Apple has worked to expose some kernel-level hardware interfacing features in safer ways than giving full kernel extension access, but otherwise that's it?

How do you call a kernel whose drivers and extensions are all in user space?

WWDC sessions on that roadmap state quite clearly that is the long term end goal, all the kernel extension mechanisms will only be available in userspace, with one year transition for each subsystem after an userspace API is made available.

> They don't know what the boundary between their web browser and their OS is,

Exactly. The thing many users are referring to as MacOS, is in fact, Darwin/MacOS, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Darwin plus MacOS. MacOS is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another component of a fully functioning operating system made useful by the BSD corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by the Single Unix Specification v3.

The problem with making unreasonable demands for data in response to casual discussions is that it is usually done when the person strongly disagrees with the statement. For that reason, it is implicitly a counter argument, and a hypocritical one: "Your opinion differs from mine, so you must provide data to back up yours!". None of the available options can be considered default, so any outcome is equally "grand" and subject to same requirements. Opposing without having a standpoint could happen in a peer review for a paper, but that is not what this is.

Your response is more reasonable, and is also more out in the open about the alternate belief (of course equally without data). Nothing wrong with disagreeing - only about making up unbalanced burdens of proof in casual discussions.

Does it force the updates? Ot can you postpone them indefinitely?

My biggest issue with Windows was the forced reboots.

"And MacBook users don't choose MacOS either."

I don't see why. I really like macOS. More than any other environment it's uncluttered, well organised, it gets out of the way. It abstracts a lot of unnecessary technical detail but still allows diving into that, if I'm inclined. And most of all, I like well integrated system-wide features instead of palming it off to developers. Sure the hardware is good too, but I don't know where you get that idea from.