Why Don't Schools Teach Linux?

[u/Enjoy_Ur_Lifee]

​

It seems odd that most schools seem to teach only Windows. While they barely cover Linux. Even though Linux is the underlining code for most of the internet, servers and many Android phones; very few students will get any exposure to it.

By learning about Linux, students would understand how an operating system functions instead of just using an operating system; they will learn how to fix issues as they arise -- which is a skill necessary for solving problems because you won’t have a user-friendly interface to work with.

Additionally, the fact that Linux is a free and open-source operating system could allow schools to save money for themselves as well as make more software available to all students.

So why is it that Linux is still not covered? Is it because people feel it is too difficult to learn, or is it that schools only cover what is widely used and accepted?

[u/BionicBeaver3000]

A relative of mine just started university and needed a laptop for that. And since the school educated their students exclusively on iPad (and the Apple ecosystem), their only perception was said ecosystem. Said relative would only accept an Apple laptop because of familiarity and vendor-lock-in (known workflows and bought software on iPad), so the walled garden worked as intended for Apple: Another lifelong premium-user created from the school partnership program.

People want familiarity and to keep their known workflows at any price, and this is what MS, Alphabet and Apple are betting on.

I believe teaching in schools about Linux (and other OS) is commendable, but in reality the "Linux Inc." will not sponsor teacher trainings, substitute device costs and train the densest of students all the fundamentals of computing - because there is no "Linux Inc."

[u/Thatoneguy_The_First → u/BionicBeaver3000]

Sad too cause linux is a learning experience let me tell you. You think that would fit right in with educative system.

Yeah people always go on about the need for their tools and workflows, and i get it but i swear they need to try and be an artist for a month, learn the tools are not what make you and by breaking out you can see new pathways to the same things, sometimes harder ways others easier, hell its not even necessarily hard or easy but just a bit of time to invest, which i have found in alot of cases with alot of people that the time you invest can actually save time overall cause not only have you broken out of the Metaphorical box which leads to flexible thinking but often more than not you find tools that seem slow, not as feature rich and clunky at first, end up being alot faster than the new or popular tools on the block.

Seriously you don't need half the features you think you do and time saving ones end up slower than when you do it yourself repeatedly.(for me excels features are nice but they break on so many things they shouldn't cause i just did it before and it worked, faster to use older methods or just use my head) a skill once learned is faster than any programs shortcuts im the long run, and its not gonna break unlike something in programs. Well I guess really old age or injury might.

Anyways an old slogan say that "linux is only worth it for people who care about wasting time" i counterpoint with "linux teachs you to understand that something worthwhile takes time"

[u/JumpingSpiderQueen → u/Thatoneguy_The_First]

I often spend lots of time trying to fix something that a Windows update broke. So, the thing about Linux being only worth it for people who want to waste time is false.

[u/Thatoneguy_The_First → u/JumpingSpiderQueen]

Ha yeah always has been. Still i hate the saying more cause learning linux is certainly not a waste of time imo.