What happened to the Ubuntu community?

[kisfj]

Ha az UBUNTU rendelkezne elfogadható könnyen kezelhető antivirussal, akkor biztosan sokal többen használnák az ubuntut.
If UBUNTU had an acceptable easy-to-use antivirus, surely many more people would use ubuntu.

[greg612]

I can tell you

I have been coming here on and off since around 2000

My first linux was opensuse long ago....

The support here was great people helped and was generally nice to everyone and really tried to help...

now fast forward to 2024.... There are still a few here that help and are nice about it........Others are rude and act like if u dont know it why u using it

This is almost complete opposite of what it used to be.

if it wasnt for alot people trying linux and trying something new linux wouldnt be where it is and if people gets talked to like a underling derrick hows linux itself even going to grow....

times have changed and changed alot... for those that help and respect people THANK YOU

[zebra2]

If UBUNTU had an acceptable easy-to-use antivirus, surely many more people would use ubuntu.

I actually agree with this! I too miss the old Windows days when we had a antivirus (or wish we had!) and spent all of our time chasing down the virus's that the antivirus didnt get, especially the root kit type. Perhaps someone could write one for Linux and we can all be happy,

P.S. Linux does have a antivirus program but is is used on Windows partitions. As far as I know!

[DuckHook]

…I too miss the old Windows days when we had a antivirus (or wish we had!) and spent all of our time chasing down the virus's that the antivirus didnt get, especially the root kit type…

Linux overall does not have the same virus concerns that the proprietary vendors have. And this applies to specific distros like Ubuntu as well.

This is not to say that Linux is "safe". Linux users are just as subject to social engineering attacks, phishing, credential stuffings, SIM swappings, MitM attacks, cross‑site hijackings, etc, but these are universal dangers more in the nature of cons rather than malicious code. Bad guys will go after what is always the weakest link in security: the human element. And such attacks are now the prevailing form of computing corruption. AV can't catch those.

I've been running Linux for close to two decades without antivirus. No problems yet. By contrast, I would never dream of running Windows without AV.

I don't think the introduction of unavoidably bloated AV would do anything to improve Ubuntu's takeup.

Moreover, are readers aware that a number of AV vendors have recently been taken over by shady owners? Some are now owned by the very spammers and lowlifes who made AV necessary in the first place. Many proprietary OS users are blithely unaware of the danger they are inviting by installing these AV platforms. It's yet another unintended consequence of "magic" thinking.

Linux is a geek's OS (or, at a minimum, limited to those who have access to geek support). I don't see that dynamic changing. And, so long as it remains a geek OS, it will always have no more than niche status in the desktop and general consumer ecosystem.

In my opinion, a Linux conquest of the desktop ecosystem is not only unrealistic, but unwelcome. I don't want Linux to be the OS of the masses. It would need to get dumbed down to the same level as the proprietary OSes to serve that function, and that would neuter it of its power, flexibility and community‑mindedness: everything that makes it so valuable to me in the first place.

[greg612]

Linux is a geek's OS (or, at a minimum, limited to those who have access to geek support). I don't see that dynamic changing. And, so long as it remains a geek OS, it will always have no more than niche status in the desktop and general consumer ecosystem.

In my opinion, a Linux conquest of the desktop ecosystem is not only unrealistic, but unwelcome. I don't want Linux to be the OS of the masses. It would need to get dumbed down to the same level as the proprietary OSes to serve that function, and that would neuter it of its power, flexibility and community‑mindedness: everything that makes it so valuable to me in the first place.

I couldnt agree more but at the same time I welcome new users

[zebra2]

In my opinion, a Linux conquest of the desktop ecosystem is not only unrealistic, but unwelcome. I don't want Linux to be the OS of the masses. It would need to get dumbed down to the same level as the proprietary OSes to serve that function, and that would neuter it of its power, flexibility and community‑mindedness: everything that makes it so valuable to me in the first place.

Fortunately, for the rest of the world your attitude doesn't represent the direction that Canonical is moving. I think that there goal is definitely aimed at making Ubuntu mainstream. Else, they should just put a disclaimer next to the Ubuntu download page that says. "For linux techies only.

In fact your post is the attitude that goes to the heart of this thread. I don't know if you know it but there are entire cities on this planet that are officially switching to Linux.
FYI Sorry about that.

[greg612]

I started with all windows use... I started with opensuse as toy

It was to play around with People here made me feel welcome and was a great help

fast forward til today no windows not for years only windows i touch at home is wife's and mothers

Alot of that comes from here starting out with support here i was changed I love Ubuntu and i still play around with others

I t is a geeks toy YES but for the best for Ubuntu It should apply to the masses there are other dist to play with geek wise some are better geek toys

[BBQdave]

In my opinion, a Linux conquest of the desktop ecosystem is not only unrealistic, but unwelcome. I don't want Linux to be the OS of the masses. It would need to get dumbed down to the same level as the proprietary OSes to serve that function, and that would neuter it of its power, flexibility and community‑mindedness: everything that makes it so valuable to me in the first place.

I agree, though I believe there is room for the community to grow. As long as new members understand GNU/Linux is a community.

The strength with a GNU/Linux distro is community And I am not sure how friendlier of an experience you can get than with Ubuntu.

At this point, Ubuntu Linux is a very mature stable OS. No different than if you went from Windows to Mac OS X, or learn a new dash system for work.

The key difference with GNU/Linux, again is community. You are joining a community and participating at some level. It is not a company service to place demands on. The more you participate, research and read up on your own, the better your GNU/Linux experience will be

[DuckHook]

Fortunately, for the rest of the world your attitude doesn't represent the direction that Canonical is moving. I think that there goal is definitely aimed at making Ubuntu mainstream. Else, they should just put a disclaimer next to the Ubuntu download page that says. "For linux techies only.

In fact your post is the attitude that goes to the heart of this thread.

On second reading, it is clear that what I wrote can come across as entitled and arrogant. Please accept my apologies for that.

To clarify:

I am not opposed to higher adoption. Were I opposed, I would not be helping out on these forums. In fact, I welcome higher adoption — but not unconditionally. If such adoption can be done while preserving the power, flexibility and freedom of Linux, then I am all for it. But if such adoption can only be achieved by sacrificing what is best in Linux, then I don't want it.

The problem (as I see it) is that this power, flexibility and freedom comes at a price that most general users are not willing to pay. It's not a price in traditional monetary terms, but one of time, effort and commitment — not so much in learning the technical things (anything new requires a period of learning) — as it is a mindset that is very much the opposite of what proprietary users have been conditioned to think of as normal.

Perhaps a personal anecdote would be useful:

I used to be an indiscriminate Linux evangelist, recommending it to all and sundry. In hindsight, that was the truly arrogant attitude — that Linux is best for everybody and everything — but I digress. The result was that a number of my friends and family installed Ubuntu based on my enthusiasm.

One in particular thought it too "limiting" and insisted on running everything as root. He was motivated to switch in the first place because XP was well passed EoL, but this also meant that he was conditioned to running Windows under its default administrator permissions. He was also conditioned to downloading unknown apps from unknown sources that he found on the Internet. The idea of a repository was completely alien to him and he was intent on ignoring Canonical's. He insisted on the same "freedom" with Ubuntu. No matter how I tried to educate or dissuade him, he insisted on running as root and installing whatever took his fancy.

I wasn't as security savvy then as I am now, but even at that time, I knew that this was a recipe for disaster. I told him that I would enable root for him, but that I would not be responsible for anything else that happened from that point onward and could not provide support if he ran into trouble. Sure enough, in less than a year, he did something that destroyed his enter system. Despite our previous understanding, he asked me for help, but I could do little for him aside from offloading his important data.

He decided to go back to Windows and I was openly happy that he did. Facilitating him in turning his Linux box into another node on a bot farm would only have done a disservice to the larger Linux community. I have no idea what sort of computing he does now. We are still good friends. but when we yap over a beer, we avoid the topic of computers.

Over the years, I've actually helped some dozens of users try out Linux. For a few months, I was a member of our local LUG (I stopped attending when it became apparent that women were not being accommodated properly). So, my attempts to get ordinary people to use Linux is based on practice and not just theory.

The example that I have cited may be anecdotal, but it is not isolated or unique. In fact, my observation is that it is the rule rather than the exception. Most general users (as opposed to organizational users, which I will address separately) confuse freedom with promiscuous app installation, and power with poor computing hygiene. They've been conditioned to think of security in terms of magic AV apps rather than cautious behaviour. And they think of an OS as a tool that solely serves them rather than as an extension of a larger ecosystem that requires a commitment to learning, discipline and a respect for that ecosystem.

I no longer evangelize Linux. If a friend asks me install it for them, I no longer automatically do so, but first ask them if they are willing to commit not only the time and energy needed, but deal with the frustration that may ensue. A few are, but most are not and the conversation ends there.

Of the numerous people that I've introduced to Linux, only a handful are still using it. Without exception, they are those who rely on me as their technical support. Those to whom I have not provided support have all dropped it and gone back to some proprietary OS.

Oops. That's not entirely true. There is my nephew to whom I introduced Linux years ago and who still uses it as his personal OS entirely on his own. But he has a masters in IT and is employed on the cutting edge of an organization specializing in Big Data — he's even more of a geek than I am.

This has taught me the following:

• Linux requires a mindset that highly values abstractions like transparency, community, privacy, security, agency and data sovereignty. We on these forums value these abstractions as a matter of course, so it doesn't occur to us that most people don't value them. But the reality is that most people overwhelmingly value purely ease, comfort and convenience, and demand that such comforts take precedence over anything else.
• However, Linux cannot supply ease, comfort and convenience without sacrificing its abstract qualities. For example, because it is built from the ground up as a security‑conscious OS, it ought never to accommodate the misguided desire to play god by operating as root. And that's just one example among hundreds.
• For the average user, Linux is too obscure and abstract for them to comfortably use as their everyday OS. It runs games poorly (or not at all), won't run the apps they are used to (i.e. almost nothing from Adobe works on Linux), and the workarounds are uncomfortable and limiting (the complaints about the limitations of LibreOffice compared to MSOffice are legion, WINE is unreliable, etc).
• Linux's default security/privacy/anonymity stance requires an a priori commitment to a security/privacy/anonymity mindset. Most general users do not have such a mindset and have no desire to cultivate one.

In light of all of the above, the reason I posted what I did, and worded it as strongly as I did, is because I feel that the ongoing push to "mainstream" Ubuntu — to somehow conquer the world — is dangerous to Linux. It cannot be done without destroying what is at the heart of Linux.

[DuckHook]

…I don't know if you know it but there are entire cities on this planet that are officially switching to Linux…

Yes, I am aware of this. Governments of all types from local to national are very good environments for adopting Linux. So are other organizations like hospitals and agencies. This is because they constitute contained and protected silos where an OS can be ordained by corporate/organizational fiat. Such organizations have the resources to provide the inevitably needed support and they also naturally constrain what users can do on these systems (in the interest of system security and integrity if nothing else). For sure, no games or unapproved apps allowed. But outside of such strict environments, in the free‑for‑all of the general computing environment, any mass market OS must succumb to user demands that run counter to what makes Linux so special (as discussed previously).

I'm afraid that your example of City governments serves to reinforce my point rather than yours.

It seems to me that we are left with two choices:

1. Change Linux to work like the proprietary OSes. Otherwise, ordinary users will not adopt it.
2. Keep Linux secure, powerful, flexible and open. But this necessarily comes with the obscurity, difficulty and self‑discipline that only a small minority of users will put up with.

I just choose the latter.

Rather then continuing to push against a rope, I would rather pull on it.