Its time to switch to Linux!
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
484 points (87.3% liked)
memes
10398 readers
2165 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Exactly. Us Linux users, as a collective, tend to shoot ourselves in the foot here because we can't decide on the "best" distro for beginners. If we all just said one thing, with confidence and without arguments, and without saying "it depends...", more would probably make the switch.
No major outlets that the average user would frequent are likely to sell laptops with any Linux distro pre installed. Many non-technical users wouldn't even reinstall Windows by themselves, let alone Linux.
Any of the usual starter distros would be a good choice because once they are in the ecosystem they can find their own path. When a non technical person asks how to get Linux, there is no worse answer than a barrage of information followed by more questions. Just pick one, say it confidently, and assist them to make it happen.
People like choice, but people don't want to have to spend time choosing or learning.
That's why I mentioned Arch - because of the tie in with the Steam Deck. Nice and easy for gamers to make a connection to.
What becomes the difficult sell is that people, in general, don't understand computers. It's the bane of my existence. Any Linux distro requires a basic understanding of how computers work. The Windows PC and Apple products were successful because they required no learning and the user was relatively protect from messing anything up.
The Steam Deck was successful because it took that same approach. It just uses a variant of their Big Picture mode users are already used to.
Linux, by it's very nature, is not something that can be widely adopted by consumers. I think that's why Apple and Windows (hell, even Google with Android and Chrome OS) can get all the invasive technology to the user they want, and force users to adopt even more invasive things. Because people just won't learn anything else. And that's not something any of us can do anything about.
I get your point but still wouldn't recommend arch to new people cause it's arch. Maybe something simpler like Mint which is what most people recommend imo.
And which distro would you pick with confidence? (Legitimately asking, I don't know which one I'd pick)
I intentionally didn't include it in my post because I didn't want the wave of differing opinions to distract from my point.
Personally, on balance, I would suggest Mint (Cinammon) for a new user, especially if it's an Internet stranger. Of course, I expect many, many replies disagreeing or explaining why I'm wrong and should pick ... something else.
There are loads of distros that are, or claim to be, friendly to new users. As with everything, all have advantages and disadvantages. My kids use Bazzite on their laptops because I can support them and deal with anything unexpected. I wouldn't recommend it to a random person because the installation isn't as friendly as others, and it's not as prevalent, so there is less support via search engines. The forums are quite active, and the community is friendly, but many folk would rather look for an existing answer than ask anything new. Then of course there's Ubuntu (with Snap et al), Pop!_OS, Elementary, Deepin etc etc. We could probably discuss the merits and detractors of each forever, just like currently happens in so many threads on Lemmy, Reddit and others.
So, why would I suggest Mint? Simply because it's not a wrong answer. It's easy to get, easy to install, has a great and welcoming community, and serves as a great place to introduce users to the ecosystem. After using it for a while, they can make their own, more informed choice of their next distro. There are plenty of other not wrong distros to choose from, but Mint is the one I would suggest.
Yep, you did it-- Mint is the right answer!
I’m so anti-Ubuntu but I would probably put that out there and roll with it. You can move on to something better once you figure it out anyway.
Distrowatch.com (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
Problem though is it does depend, if they want to game pop or brazzite may be best, if they just want an lts then an lts is best, if they want all the updates fast maybe Fedora or endeavor, but if they want a more windows-y experience instead of mac-y then maybe FedoraKDE instead of Gnome..
The type of user who needs to ask where to start with Linux probably doesn't know how the difference between LTS and non-LTS will affect them in their daily life, yet. By the time you've finished explaining it to them, they've already decided that maybe Windows isn't so bad after all. Hence, my original point.
I assumed you knew what the acronym stood for (and you clearly do) so I didn't type it out, but I think "Long-Term Stable" is fairly self explanatory at least to the level a newcomer would need.
I didn't say they wouldn't know what it meant, I said they would be unlikely to know how it will affect them in their daily usage.
Most Windows users are accustomed to installing and updating their own applications, and letting the OS deal with its own updates and patches. They probably don't think much about all the dependencies and what version they're on because the installers deal with it.
When deciding whether to use a Linux LTS they may think it sounds like a good idea, with no appreciation for what happens when a package gets out of date, and their package manager won't update it, and they don't know why. They go down the rabbit hole of adding PPAs etc, which solves it in the short term maybe. Then it only gets worse from there, because they didn't understand that using an LTS means you have chosen to accept some packages being out of date for a while, until the next LTS is released.
Maybe they're the kind of person that is happy with that, or maybe they're not. But if you try to explain to the average Windows user about package repositories, Flatpaks, Snaps, LTS, rolling releases etc, you can pretty much guarantee they'll never try it because it sounds too damn hard.
Which brings me back to my original point... Us Linux users argue amongst ourselves too much about this stuff to attract Windows users, no matter what Microsoft does with their data.
"If you want super up to date stuff, an LTS is not your best choice, I'd go for something like Fedora and just keep back ups or set up snapper using this easy guide on youtube." (For example.)
”Package managers are basically your app store, you'll probably have the official one for your distro and then a general one called flatpak, use these for downloading your 'apps.'" They can understand a few basic things, they're windows users not Amish.