You state: "My advice as a Linux user of 32 years for normal people is to buy a Mac."
And as a Linux user since the the MCC Interim distro[0] was made available through the floppy-distribution network in 1992, my advice is for most normal users to begin the process of migrating to Linux.
Why? Because even if the Mac has some current advantages over Linux for some normal users today, in the long run, Apple cannot ever be trusted any more than Microsoft can. If you believe that they can be, you're delusional. Whatever enshitifaction process Windows has undergone, whatever further reductions in user rights and freedoms Microsoft has introduced since it became platform hegemon, Apple will do the same. This is almost a law of nature.
No, it is time for everyone to understand that in the long run, if we want a free and open society, the only way that that can be achieved is through free and open software. And as software comes to dominate the operation of society, then this becomes critical.
So, the sooner most every normal user bites the bullet and begins the migration to Linux, the less painless it will be for them in the long run, and the safer for humanity.
It doesn't. I actually completely reject that theory, and it's nice to see that Wikipedia notes that it is "controversial". There are extremely good reasons to reject this theory. For one thing, any quantum effects are going to be quite tiny/ trivial because the brain is too large, hot, wet, etc, to see larger effects, so you have to somehow make a leap to "tiny effects that last for no time at all" to "this matters fundamentally in some massive way".
It likely requires rejection of functionalism, or the acceptance that quantum states are required for certain functions. Both of those are heavy commitments with the latter implying that there are either functions that require structures that can't be instantiated without quantum effects or functions that can't be emulated without quantum effects, both of which seem extremely unlikely to me.
Probably for the far more important reason, it doesn't solve any problem. It's just "quantum woo, therefor libertarian free will" most of the time.
It's mostly garbage, maybe a tiny tiny bit of interesting stuff in there.
It also would do nothing to indicate that human intelligence is unique.
Re: "The Hardware Root of Trust and the binary blobs would still be compiled by a firm that Western governments view as a fundamental supply-chain risk."
Sorry to break it to you, but all of the US hardware firms have now fallen into this same trust-abyss. Trump's USA is now seen in many parts as as big, if not a bigger, digital sovereignty threat as China's communist party is.
Re: "Europe is not doing fine: Europe is definitely a declining, unstable (lots of far-right vs far-left parties opposing themselves in elections in many EU countries now) empire."
If this is reality in Europe, which is perhaps likely, then by comparison, the US has devolved into failed-state status. Better a slow decline than a catastrophic fall into the constitutional/regulatory/legal/technological/scientific abyss.
Even if Europe has insurmountable problems, its best move forward is to decouple strategically from the US, and these days, all things strategic are underpinned by information technology. The fact that Europe (soon to be followed by Canada, Australia and New Zealand) is heading down this path is why the US has hit the panic button[0].
Re: "The US is the US and in three years there's going to be another president. But the EU's problems are much deeper."
The US may have another president or even another style of president, but that wont stop this migration away from American technological/strategic hegemony; because at this level and at this scale, complete trust by former allies, once lost, will never be regained. The US century is now over.
Thankfully open source software is there as an alternative to that US software. I guess it's no co-incidence that LibreOffice and Linux both have their roots in Europe.
OpenBSD and FreeBSD are great. This is coming from someone who used BSD 4.2 on a Vax 11/780 in the mid-80s. They don't lack in terms of 'technical architecture'.
What these dialects of the Unix operating system do lack is a licence which ensured their success.
Linux won in the end as much from its copyleft licence as from its development methodology or personalities involved.
You say: "My concern at this point is what the picture will look like with embargoes around software development and FOSS"
Can you elaborate on this point?
To my mind, there is no better warranty mechanism for digital sovereignty than FOSS, even if that means each nation has to fork the software tools that they're embargoed from.
It's going to be a headache if America and Europe can't share code and we see the balkanization of Linux and FOSS in general. Developers, many who work for free, will potentially have a whole lot of hoops to jump through to submit (or accept) code, and there's the potential for them to commit serious crimes without even realizing it.
Yes it's great for sovereignty, but I really hope it doesn't get to that point.
The thing about copyleft FOSS however is that the code is almost certainly available, can be vetted by any nation, and accepted into any digital sovereignty framework.
If what we were talking about here are proprietary (or "closable" non-copyleft) codebases atop proprietary protocols, then yes, we're doomed.
From the fine article: "$12.2 million, representing a 149 percent increase."
One wonders just how much of a price hike - or how much of a digital sovereignty threat from the Trump regime - it would take to have the Australian government public sector shift to alternative solutions, like this one:
Re: "Or maybe the operating system should just work reliably for (at least) the basics?"
So, out of curiosity, if I tried installing MacOS on any of the 15+ computers I have at home, what are the likely chances that this "operating system should just work reliably for (at least) the basics?"
I can tell you that my success rate with Linux is 100%.
I’m not especially speaking for MacOS, but to your question, I suspect if you tried to install an appropriate version of MacOS on Mac hardware, you’d have very close to a 100% success rate. That’s certainly my past experience with Mac and, FWIW, Windows too.
Anyway, my point wasn’t that Linux should be perfect; but that if it can’t be, maybe give some help why, and more experienced users shouldn’t just jump to blaming the struggling newbie.
The key is this: if you want Linux to win with non-experts, it needs to target being a better experience for non-experts than the alternatives, to justify the effort of changing.
Re: "if you want Linux to win with non-experts, it needs to target being a better experience for non-experts than the alternatives"
I agree in broad terms, but let me re-capitulate this. Which OS do you think would offer a better experience for non-experts when installing on bare-metal? By my reckoning, Windows is a nightmare to install afresh on random hardware, and MacOS wont work on most-all random hardware. Users think that Windows is easier because they almost never have to install it from scratch.
Also, do you factor in the ever-increasing nuisances (AI, ads, spyware)[0][1][2][4] that Microsoft and Apple are injecting into their operating systems, and the move towards digital sovereignty which is accelerating in every nation outside of the US in any computation of what is a 'better experience'?
> I agree in broad terms, but let me re-capitulate this. Which OS do you think would offer a better experience for non-experts when installing on bare-metal? By my reckoning, Windows is a nightmare to install afresh on random hardware, and MacOS wont work on most-all random hardware. Users think that Windows is easier because they almost never have to install it from scratch.
I've done multiple installs of every Windows (except 8) Windows since the NT4 era, and multiple installs of OS X over the last decade. They have almost always been straightforward and successful, unless I've complicated things with weird partition/dual boot requirements. (OS X isn't really a fair comparison, as the target hardware is so hugely restricted.)
----
Aside from the initial installation 'just working' (which I accept might not be dramatically different with Linux, these days, and indeed, I accept that Windows often needs additional drivers downloading, depending on your system.) there's another big factor to consider.
With Windows and OS X there's a long-established concept (at least, prior to the app store era) that if you want to install something, you download a file and run it. This applies whether it's drivers or software, and >95% of the time also provides a simple uninstall path. Even my elderly mother can grok this.
With Linux, this is my recent journey: Must I use APT or APT-GET? Flatpack? Snap? Or can I use the built-in Software Manager (FWIW, I really like the one in Mint, except when stuff isn't available on it.) Oh, so some software (Mullvad, Blender, etc.) I need to download manually? I've installed Mint; am I on a Debian system? Okay, I'll download the DEB, but then how to install that? (Oh, it failed - open-whispr). For other things, we must download an Appimage and make it executable - great, that works, but it doesn't have an install feature, so how to install it somewhere so that it's not forever sitting in Downloads? Huh, okay, I can figure that out, but it's a pain. Oh, wait, some of those self-contained files I've downloaded will run directly from file manager, but for some reason fail silently via the start menu link I've just made. Okay, better trouble-shoot that tomorrow...
(For brevity, I've left out that at every stage, there were multiple web searches to find instructions for the correct approach, diving into all manner of forums, Stack Overflow posts, and Github repositories. And I've left out the more esoteric stuff, like slowing down touchpad scrolling via obscure command-line incantations.)
This is the reality of setting up a simple Linux system with (what is reputed to be) one of the most user-friendly distros there is.
And which is why, if the goal is Linux 'winning' on the desktop (beyond committed nerds) there's still quite some way to go on UX.
> Also, do you factor in the ever-increasing nuisances (AI, ads, spyware)[0][1][2][4] that Microsoft and Apple are injecting into their operating systems, and the move towards digital sovereignty which is accelerating in every nation outside of the US in any computation of what is a 'better experience'?
Totally with you, 100% - that's why I'm experimenting with a full shift to Linux myself. But this only applies to relative nerds. Many/most non-expert users don't know or care about such things.
Re: "Or can I use the built-in Software Manager (FWIW, I really like the one in Mint, except when stuff isn't available on it.)"
I think this (built-in Software Manager) is probably the right track for most normal users. Last time I checked, the Debian software repo had over 120,000 packages, so for most normal users, the bulk of what they need is likely there and thus likely easier to install than apps on MacOS or Windows. My usual track record for installing a new desktop for family members, including the top 100 apps they likely need, is under 30 minutes for Linux. The last time I tried this with Windows, it took days of effort and frustration and to some extent opened the computer up to security risks because of the multitude of binary sources I had to trust.
But yes, once you start needing specialist software, then your-mileage-may-vary. Having said that, apps like Blender are already in the Ubuntu repo, which should mean they are also in the Mint Software Manager, and thus a single-click away from installation.
In general, I would consider Linux to be the easiest platform to install software on for the most common 80% of the software that normal users need. It's certainly the easiest to maintain and update that commonly used software of any of the mainstream desktop OSes.
Again, I think a lot of the mismatch of norms & experiences comes down to what someone becomes accustomed to. If you're accustomed to downloading an installation binary (EXE/MSI) and double-clicking that to install on Windows, then you can become accustomed to downloading an installation binary (DEB/RPM) and double-clicking that to install on Linux (viz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOPQPrzmnw0).
Re: "I gave up and have been using a MacBook ever since lol."
I'm curious. What will you do when Apple too starts shoehorning AI into every part of MacOS and when Apple introduces increasingly unpalatable or government-mandated surveillance functionality like Microsoft is doing with Recall?
Asahi linux to not waste hardware and then move away from apple products slowly. But in the meantime, their products are good and are Unix based so they're not a pain for development.
Or, you could help accelerate the move away from proprietary platforms, even if there is a small hit to you personally. This is how we help save society, rather than having others do all the work, no?
In the end, it's in your best interests that Linux and open platforms improve in the direction you want them to, and the best way to achieve that is by joining the effort now.
I can't tell if you're missing the key information or merely trolling.
Steam on Linux went from 1.4% at the start of 2025 and hit 3.58% at the end of that year. That's a 156% increase in device adoption in a single year. Most platforms would be happy with such growth.
The more important point is this: look at the growth trajectory. Windows11 and - I'm being told they've changed their name to Microslop, can anyone confirm? - are on the nose. Linux growth at the current rates would see a ~10% adoption rate in 2026. That then establishes a serious threat to the current gaming platform hegemony.
And as a Linux user since the the MCC Interim distro[0] was made available through the floppy-distribution network in 1992, my advice is for most normal users to begin the process of migrating to Linux.
Why? Because even if the Mac has some current advantages over Linux for some normal users today, in the long run, Apple cannot ever be trusted any more than Microsoft can. If you believe that they can be, you're delusional. Whatever enshitifaction process Windows has undergone, whatever further reductions in user rights and freedoms Microsoft has introduced since it became platform hegemon, Apple will do the same. This is almost a law of nature.
Here's an example of this:
https://www.wired.com/story/bytedance-apps-are-no-longer-ava...
No, it is time for everyone to understand that in the long run, if we want a free and open society, the only way that that can be achieved is through free and open software. And as software comes to dominate the operation of society, then this becomes critical.
So, the sooner most every normal user bites the bullet and begins the migration to Linux, the less painless it will be for them in the long run, and the safer for humanity.
Cheers.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCC_Interim_Linux
[EDIT: Typo.]
reply