I see comments on posts such these very often where people complain about opensource products like Linux phones, Linux itself, or pretty much anything else, not being as good as their proprietary, funded, and profits driven alternatives. How are such projects supposed to compete without money and full-time developers? Especially when people are unwilling to donate to them "because they just aren't there yet", how do they expect the projects to quickly get to a point where they are boob friendly and usable?
People will disparage groups that try to make something with barely any funding and time. There are so many negative comments about the PinePhone, Phosh, PostMarketOS, and so on. It's disappointing to have such a community.
As soon as an opensource project asks for funds, integrates a question for funds in their software, uses a restrictive license or something like a business source license, someone will complain about it on social media and blow up the maintainers' repository and socials. Why are we so averse to opensource contributors earning a living writing opensource?
If people don't want to fund opensource (or "source available") until "it's ready" and resist any attempt to make money from it, how it the model supposed to succeed in being an alternative for the majority?
Sorry for the rant, but why can't we as a community be more active in supporting our opensource contributors instead just waiting for the apples to fall into our and their laps?
I've been using Linux since the 90's. Back then it was frustrating and really couldn't do much of what I needed done so I had to dual boot with Windows. These days Linux is (in my opinion) MUCH easier to use than Windows. It has been for a few years. The problem really is inertia. The vast majority of hardware is made to work with Windows. Linux does an amazing job of supporting hardware that was not designed to work with Linux, but will never be as seamless until hardware manufacturers support Linux at the same level as Windows. That day may be coming. The EU push for digital sovereignty could get hardware manufacturers to finally support Linux at the same level as Windows. As for Linux phones, they seem to be at the same point Linux OS was in the 90's. There is a lot of promise, but they still have a lot of development left to do. It is difficult for the community to support such projects when it will take many years to become mature. Again, I am hoping the EU will help as they try to break their dependency on American phone OSes. BTW, I am a supporter of open source. I donate annually.
Arguably, a decade and a half. I switched in 2008 largely because it was so much easier to when with (and just worked!) compared to my Windows install.
I agree with everything except Linux being easier to use than Windows (and like you, I started tinkering with Linux around 2000).
There are things as simple as a printer notification (in Mint) that you can't shut up unless you use a command line, today, in the 21st century. Your average user would be confounded by that.
Debian's default UI doesn't lead the user to "click here" to do something. The desktop is blank.
I can work with these things, but to claim that's easier than Windows is just wishful thinking.
Linux distros are amazingly easier to use today, and many non-tech people can use them, right up until they need to do something that doesn't yet exist in Linux. The distro teams have done a tremendous job trying to move Linux from being purpose-built into the general-use realm. It's not easy, I give them a lot of credit for the effort.
I can install Linux Mint much quicker than Windows, after it updates itself I have a compete working system with web browser, office suite, etc. Windows takes much longer, then additional software must be installed. For the average user, I maintain Linux is easier.