You also use the portal helper from another DE though.

For example, the Niri Wayland compositor, written in Rust with Smithay, uses xdg-desktop-portal-gnome (which I imagine is written in C).

Hahahahahaha. Good one.

Me too. I am already enjoying the discounted Intel laptops. They will really come down when macOS 27 comes out and OpenCore Legacy Patcher stops working on them.

There should certainly be some good desktop deals this Christmas for sure.

Do you have a spare SSD? Throw Linux on it and try it out for a while. You can always go back.

Who told you that?

How do you propose to do that?

Let’s say there are 2 billion desktop computers in the world and that Linux is installed on 3% of them.

That is 60 million Linux desktop users.

That is more than enough to sustain a vibrant ecosystem. Linux does not really need more market share to keep being an excellent option.

I live in fear of distros like Debian shipping ancient drivers and having to listen to 3 more years of people saying Wayland does not work. Debian 13 may ship with NVIDIA 535 drivers.

GDM launches other environments too. I do not think it is about GNOME itself.

A big thing missing from Wayland are all the other X11 window managers (hundreds of them) and desktop environments (like XFCE and Cinnamon) that people may want to use.

Ok. So now both Apple and Microsoft are distributors of the Linux kernel. What a timeline.

What happened to the Internet? Reasonable people everywhere.

Yes, I think that the skepticism towards systemd was deserved even if we have to acknowledge that it also brought improvements in some areas.

I also concede that actively supporting a distro like Debian is important for the role they play in the ecosystem, regardless of the software overlap with other distros.

I too was oversimplifying obviously.

Thank you for the reply.

First off, while we may disagree on some stuff, let me just say how awesome it is to have a reasonable conversation on the Internet. Thank you for that (and your thoughts).

I look forward to leaning more about the software you are working on. Keep us posted.

It is a matter of emphasis I think. Do not imply that they will have to switch.

I think it is important to say that there is software for every use case on Linux. Because, while all know the few cases that are “less” well covered, it is absolutely true these days that, no matter what you want to do, you can do it on Linux. In many cases, the apps you use today are available on Linux too. Emphasize this first for people who are just forming an idea of Linux in their mind and maybe wondering if it could work for them.

After you have done the above, be honest that, not all the same applications are available. It is common that Windows users moving to Linux will have to find alternatives for some of the applications they used on Windows. Do not hide from it. But don’t lead with it either.

Finally, it is ok to mention that “in some cases”, Windows applications can be used on Linux through emulation. I would give a huge “for example” many Windows games work on Linux SteamOS and Proton. Maybe link to the list. However, how likely this is to work varies from application to application. For most software, it is better to find native alternatives.

It starts off strong: “Upgrade your software, not your computer”. This is a great slogan that says exactly the right thing.

That said, I do not think the message should start off with such heavy fear-mongering. “Your computer is toast” is too much. A lot of people are going to immediately discount everything you say after that as biased and untrustworthy. Too much, too soon in the pitch.

Simply start off by saying that Windows 10 EOL is coming October 14. Simple. Factual. Accurate. Potentially educational. Ask " Did you know that a new computer running Windows 11 is not the only option? Installing KDE Plasma and Linux on your current computer may be a better choice." Honestly, it should be about as long as I have written here and then get into the benefits.

The emphasis should be on selling Plasma and Linux, not on bashing Windows. That said, the “what you will miss” section does raise good points that should be much earlier in the pitch. Switching means “no ads”, “no registrations”, “no subscriptions”, more control over updates and app choices, less spyware, and fewer viruses. Again, you do not have to directly slam Windows, just emphasize that these are benefits that Linux / Plasma user enjoy. I would not say “what you will miss”. I would say “what will you get”.

I think it is not only ok but important to be honest that switching will take some effort. Highlight that, no matter what you use your computer for, there are apps available for KDE and Linux to do what you need. In many cases, they are the same apps you use already. However, it will also be common that the Windows apps you use today are not available and you will need to use something new. You do not have to hide from that. But do not make it sound so scary or even inevitable. The last person that I switched to Linux used Thunderbird and Firefox as their two most used applications. Most of the rest of what they did (other than printing) is web based. For them, the switch was not about using new applications at all. A better approach may be a sister site asking what software they use now and identifying alternatives so they can self-assess how difficult a transition might be. If this is done, it should be a in a resources or next steps section at the end. Do not link them away from the pitch.

Absolutely say that many Windows games run on Linux via SteamOS and Proton. Gamers are a big demographic.

It is at this point in the presentation that I would emphasize more strongly that staying on Windows 10 is not really viable longer term. People will have to switch, even if it is to Windows 11. Do you you want to switch your operating system or your computer? Get back to that excellent tagline. I think this question hits harder after you have done some convincing that KDE / Linux might work for them. There are benefits to moving to Linux. You cannot avoid the pain of leaving Windows 10. If you are going to go through a disruption, now is the time to try an alternative. And with that thought, really drive home that the economic side of the equation. On Linux, nobody will force you to pay for software unless you want to. On Linux, nobody will force you to buy a new computer unless you want to. Time to say no to Microsoft and take control of your computer. You cannot send this strong message until you have made people “feel” why they would want to.

The “for the technically minded” should be near the end. I think it is fine to mention it. Perhaps the spin should be that you will never outgrow Linux as even very technical users will find all they need. In fact, most of the technology industry and “the cloud” are driven by Linux already. It could be spun less as “Linux is really complicated” and more “those in the know have already made the switch”. Then emphasize again that it is friendly enough for everyone. And then maybe finish off with direction on how to get started and where to get help.

Overall though, great to see the Linux community trying to take advantage of this opportunity. The message will reach some people. Even the Windows magazine article slamming the KDE initiative is marketing that will educate more Windows users that there even is another alternative. Great stuff.

Absolutely, we should talk about this more. Red Hat and IBM can swing their dick around and make literally any change they want to Linux. They control a lot of things, like FreeDesktopOrg (how free is that free?)

Well, I guess Freedesktop.org is free because it is free both monetarily and in terms of the “4 freedoms” of the FSF. You are correct though that Red Hat yields an enormous amount of influence. Freedesktop is a great example. Not only is it the basis for Flatpak but with Wayland relying on all the “portals”, it is becoming essential and unavoidable for the Linux desktop in general. I think the IBM boogeyman is overplayed. Red Hat is extremely successful financially and I believe IBM knows that messing with Red Hat could kill the golden goose that is laying the golden eggs. To my eyes, IBM seems quite hands off. Red Hat is the way it is as a result of its own corporate agenda. Of course, that all could change at any time.

I am wary of their bullshit. We need to make sure to keep alternatives to big corporate software in case they decide to fuck us over.

In my view, Open Source is perfect defense against the “in case they decide” timeline. For me, the bigger concern is the level of influence and the fact that, like in most areas of humanity, money talks. The vision that Red Hat has for Linux is the journey that we are all on. I think they are generally decent stewards but I do not agree entirely with their vision. I think Systemd, not just the init supervisor but the “manage everything else too” aspect, is a great example. The “our extensions are the platform” nature of glibc and friends is another. My concern about Red Hat is totally different from many of the other complaints about them in that I am worried that they will continue to “collaborate” really well and, in doing so, totally dominate the evolution of the Linux ecosystem.

Use GPL software, above all else, and remember, if GPL wasn’t effective in cutting the corpo hand they wouldn’t spread propaganda against it.

Are you saying that Red Hat “spread propaganda” against the GPL? We live in different worlds. Red Hat is not only one of the biggest GPL supporters but also one of the biggest authors of GPL software. All the software they write is released GPL including tools they originated like systemd, flatpak, libvirt, and cockpit. More importantly, they are not just one of the largest contributors to other important GPL projects (like Linux itself) but often by far the largest contributor. They often employ the project lead or have directors in the “foundation” behind a project. They have tremendous influence over the projects many GPL fans hold dear including GNOME, GCC, Glibc, and the GNU Utils.

Ironically “Use GPL software, above all else” often means being wholly within the core sphere of Red Hat control.

I use Chimera Linux which does not use GNU Utils, GCC, Glibc, or Systemd. I do not use GNOME. I am a bit less directly impacted by the army of people Red Hat has involved in Fedora and GNOME. But a lot of the alternatives to the software listed earlier in this paragraph are Apache, BSD, or MIT licensed. Ironically (or at least I think so) a lot of the people that rail against the evils of Red Hat would also caution against choosing the software I run with the view that their permissive licenses leave me open to “corporate rug pulls” and “commercial control”. This has always struck me as quite ironic given the massive corporate dominance of the core “GNU” projects.

People seem to imagine that GPL software is “written by tens of thousands of volunteers”. I saw this sentence so many times in Red Hat threads last year. But take glibc as an example. Almost all the glibc project leads have been Red Hat employees. Red Hat has been responsible for well over 50% of the commits (sometimes much higher). It is essentially a Red Hat project. Compare that to musl which is MIT licensed but where no single entity dominates development.

You could say the same for GCC. Red Hat may only have contributed 30% of the commits but the percentage on x86-64 is closer to 70% and the maintainers are Red Hat employees.

If you hate “corporate” software then Clang is your worst nightmare. It is permissively licensed (Apache) and the biggest contributors are Google, Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, and Intel. I mean, other than Oracle or Meta, how much more evil could we get? But even the largest contributor, Google, is less than a third of the commits. And it is clear that Google is mostly contributing to create a compiler for their own in-house use. They are not trying to “control” the user base or monetize the compiler and it would take a massive shift in strategy by them for this to be a concern.

Anyway, this is not meant to be an argument really. Please think and choose as you wish. However, sometimes I wonder if people have looked at the facts or if we are just projecting things we imagine must be true due to idealogy.

I do think we should be wary of Red Hat. They have a massive amount of control over the Linux ecoysystem. However, I also recognize how much benefit I get from their contributions. And personally, I do not see how the GPL stops them from taking Linux in the wrong direction (my concern). Circling the wagons around glibc and GCC especially looks and feels to me like embracing “big corporate software”, not the opposite. Red Hat has made many tens of billions of dollars off GPL software which is why they have always released all their own software as GPL. I really doubt that Red Hat themselves would agree that the GPL is “effective in cutting the corpo hand”. But that is not the argument I want to have. It is a point of view that confuses me but that is ok.

Red Hat wants to create a Linux “platform” which does not always look like traditional UNIX and which is a mono-culture in terms of the core software it requires. This is a smart move product wise so I cannot fault them. And I do want the platform to evolve (modernize). However, I would also like the Linux ecosystem to remain more distributed, more modular, and more robust. More free. I do not like technology monocultures. I “try” to avoid chromium, I resist software like systemd (again not even so much the init system part but its expansion into everything else), and I think allowing GNU and Red Hat to “embrace and extend” the POSIX world with incompatible extensions such that gnome only works with systemd which only works with glibc and software only builds with GCC and such are bad things. My “wariness” of Red Hat makes musl and Clang more attractive to me. Of course, I understand, not everybody agrees.

Does your distro use systemd? wayland? gnome? glibc? gcc? flatpak? If so, Red Hat has a lot of influence on the evolution of your distro.

Shills or no shills, using Debian does not reduce your reliance on Red Hat software all that much. Well, stuff like the above at least. Debian ships a lot more software than RHEL does.

With Leap 16, SUSE are dumping YaST (their signature software) for Cockpit (largest contributor is Red Hat) and moving to Wayland exclusively (a Red Hat project) and Pipewire (same). I mean, these are objectively good moves but they also make SUSE more like RHEL. So jumping to SUSE is not exactly jumping off the Red Hat train.

I would say the same about Arch but it is certainly possible to run a less Red Hat centric stack on Arch (though you are probably using glibc and GCC on Arch for sure and there is of course the problem that a significant percentage of the Linux kernel is Red Hat code).

Anyway, I have no intention of shilling. I am not here to make you like Red Hat. However, I also think not being idiotic means acknowledging facts.

I do not use any Red Hat distributions (not RHEL, not CentOS, not Fedora).

Red Hat is one of the largest contributors to glibc, gcc, GNU utils, systemd, ext4, Btrfs, SELinux, RPM, and GNOME. I generally try to avoid all those. However, I acknowledge that I am a heavy user of Red Hat software.

Red Hat is one of the largest contributors to Xorg, Wayland, Mesa, KVM, libvirt, dbus, podman, Pipewire, Cockpit, NetworkManager, and Flatpak. I use all of those a lot. Oh, and Red Hat has been one of the top 4 contributors to the Linux kernel for something like 20 years now. I use the Linux kernel.

If you want to avoid Red Hat software (something I see people claiming they do from time to time), you have to stay away from all the software listed on this page: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-program-office/contributions

I am ok if people dislike Red Hat and want to avoid them. I am not a user. I am not a shareholder. However, I find it hard to ignore when people claim that they DO avoid Red Hat when I know that they are knee deep in software written by Red Hat. It also bugs me when people I doubt are contributing any code rant that Red Hat are freeloaders. I do not agree with all of Red Hat’s vision for Linux and do not love or all the ways the influence the Linux world. I do acknowledge their contributions and am thankful for the software that I use.

All that sounds like “I would live for my family”. That is not what was said.

The GPL says you can get the source to software that people distribute to you. Red Hat does not distribute to Rocky.

Alma is actually a real community distro. They deserve so much more support than Rocky does.