The point I was trying to make is that they're not going to. That would take effort and learning something new. They just want a working computer, yesterday, and they're not going to waste time with "that Linux thing".
For some, I think it's a bit more fundamental than that.
I'll give an example of a conversation with a family member, who bought a used computer a few months ago and claimed it was "broken" (they didn't know where the power button was, and thought the charging cable was wrong (it was USB-C))
Me: "Oh, well since it's used, we should probably do a clean install. I can reinstall Windows for you if you want...but if you're interested, or I could do Linux instead. It works as well as Windows, but if your computer ever breaks, I'm not sure a technician could fix it as easily. It's got different benefits though, and would use this older hardware better."
Them: "Oh? But how could you even do that?"
Me: "Linux installs are pretty easy. As easy as Windows install."
Them: "But isn't this a Windows laptop?" (It was a ThinkPad.
Me: "No...it's just a laptop. Your laptop. You're not required to use Windows. You can use whatever you want. You own it."
Them: "But how could it have Linux if it already had Windows? I thought this was a 'Windows' laptop? Doesn't this only work with Windows?"
Me: "It can have Windows. It could also have Linux, instead. It's just what's installed right now to make the computer work. It's yours to do with as you wish."
I could kind of see a look of surprise on their face. It hadn't even occurred to them that they were permitted to install anything but Windows, because they saw it as a "Windows" laptop.
Ultimately I ended up reinstalling Windows because they were afraid of dealing with the unknown, as you mentioned.
You could try putting Linux on it anyway and just call it Windows. Well it is - X Windows, unless it's Waythingie and who's counting anyway.
Think about how wanky the entire IT experience really is: from phone to laptop to desktop. No one really knows what is going on: a user keeps poking at widgets until it does something.
Most people have no idea what is going on, per se, and I do recall how confusing things looked when I first discovered the concept of folders/directories. That would be the very early '80s.
I certainly did consider it, and even told them as much. Ultimately though, I tried to imagine what it would feel like if I asked a friend to do something to my car, he agreed, then did something completely different because "it's better"; it might be, but I'd kind of resent it on principle. :/
I did make sure to mention that the chromebook they had at home, as well as the smartphone they were using, were both technically (kind of) Linux, which threw them for a loop! Haha. :) I try to "plant seeds" and watch if any trust/interest grows naturally with time.
"It hadn't even occurred to them that they were permitted to install anything but Windows"
Well, Microsoft certainly would like it, if this would not be the case. And some argue they tried to advance this concept with locking down the bootloader a bit.
The point OP was trying to make is that for most people, they don't need to learn anything new - If all they're going to be doing is fire up Chrome and go to Facebook or whatever, then the OS doesn't really matter to them.
The minor UI/UX differences between Windows and say, a distro running KDE or XFCE isn't any greater than the difference between two major Windows versions. I mean, look at Windows 11, a lot of normies were unhappy about the center oriented taskbar. And look at the mess that Windows 8 was - no start button initially, and a fullscreen start menu.
The proof in the pudding is the relative success of Chromebooks - normies buy it knowing that all they need is a browser, and they didn't need to take any big effort to learn anything new.
>The proof in the pudding is the relative success of Chromebooks
Actually, I think Chromebooks are a failure. Google used the wrong strategy, namely being too controlling and restrictive, with Chromebooks. This is diametrically opposite to Chrome or Android. Chrome and Android's pitch was simple, "No matter how shit your hardware is, we'll give you a good operating system/browser". It was a lost closer to the linux ethos. Chromebooks on the other hard are integrated and licensed devices that manufacturers make in collaboration with Google. They are all crap because Google's needs are different from the manufacturer's or the market's. Outside of the education sector, where there is some product market fit, they are useless trash. A waste of so much good technology.
"Outside of the education sector, where there is some product market fit, they are useless trash"
Give me another ultramobile and rugged linux laptop for 300 bucks with touchscreen and I gladly take it. I also would consider a more expensive one, but for outdoor use, I never found a better working device than chromebooks.
Of course the OS by itself is terrible. Via VMs every app is possible, but for me I have a very simple dev device with node and chrome dev tools (in developer mode)
When I said success, I didn't say that in terms of technology or market share, I meant it in terms of normies being able to adapt to a different OS without having to undergo training. The fact that normies were able to simply pick up and use a Chromebook shows that people can use a different non-mainstream OS, as long as their needs are simple.
My wife rocks Arch. She calls it Facebook and email and internet.
On a more serious note, my work intranet wiki page for turning a stock Ubuntu (Kubuntu but I also allow any Ubuntu variant) box into a corporate one is getting quite short these days.
It's a lot shorter than the Windows equivalent one. They are hamstrung by the lack of a central software source.
