Don’t get me wrong. I love Linux and FOSS. I have been using and installing distros on my own since I was 12. Now that I’m working in tech-related positions, after the Reddit migration happened, etc. I recovered my interest in all the Linux environment. I use Ubuntu as my main operating system in my Desktop, but I always end up feeling very limited. There’s always software I can’t use properly (and not just Windows stuff), some stuff badly configured with weird error messages… last time I was not able to even use the apt command. Sometimes I lack time and energy for troubleshooting and sometimes I just fail at it.

I usually end up in need of redoing a fresh install until it breaks up again. Maybe Linux is not good for beginners working full time? Maybe we should do something like that Cisco course that teaches you the basic commands?

  • This is always a hilarious conversation because the diehard Linux users will lie up and down about how Linux has no problems and it’s just you that’s too dumb to understand how to use it.

    • Initial setup can be hard, and then, because GNU/Linux lets you do whatever you want, It’s not hard to bork the system if you’re using commands you don’t understand. The biggest realization for me was that if I want a stable system, I can’t expect to experiment with it / customize it to the nth degree unless I have a robust rollback / recovery solution like timeshift in place. Feeling very empowered after leaving windows, I have destroyed many systems, but truly, if you set up your system and then leave it alone, these days it’s not difficult to have a good experience.

      But yea, you’re totally right: the userbase can be toxic AF, and there’s no one place you can go to learn the basics you really ought to know.

      • Initial setup can be hard, and then, because GNU/Linux lets you do whatever you want, It’s not hard to bork the system if you’re using commands you don’t understand.

        But it borks itself. It doesn’t require my assistance.

        • Nope, it doesn’t. It always requires human assistance or random hardware failure. It’s either the user, the distro, package maintainer or upstream fucking up.

          Personally I blame half on users for picking the wrong distro(not suited for beginners) and half on the linux community giving poor advice(use the terminal). Not everyone has the time or inclination to become a power user and if people wouldn’t be so thickheaded and recommending the same problematic distros over and over to these people it wouldn’t be such a mess.

          I have a 80 year old neighbour whose old windows laptop was a mess and who was open to trying a new OS(because he couldn’t operate windows either anyway). I setup a MicroOS system for him, put a taskbar extension on it and showed him how to install software from gnome-software(which only has flatpaks). ZERO problems in half a year. He doesn’t have to do anything nor learn anything. He happily installed some card games, reads the few websites he follows and that’s it.

          • Agreed, you get to pick between a system that empowers you to do whatever you like, or an unborkable system. If you need something that won’t let you shoot yourself in the foot, you ought to be using an immutable distro.

            For ages I blamed GNU/Linux for breaking when I was unknowingly causing issues. These days, I don’t fix what isn’t broken, and if I can’t help myself, I make sure I understand what I’m doing, write down any changes I make, and ensure I have a snapshot ready in case things don’t work out.

            GNU/Linux may not exclusively be for advanced users anymore, but system customization still is.

            • Agreed, you get to pick between a system that empowers you to do whatever you like, or an unborkable system.

              Yeah that’s not true. There is no such thing as an “unborkable” system. There are, however, systems that aren’t often borked by their developers, and systems that are easy or intuitive to fix when they do become borked, or systems that quickly ship a fix when they do become “borked” (this is Windows BTW).

              The implication that any “borked” Linux install was somehow self-inflicted by the user is ridiculous.

        • No, no OS “borks” itself. You just didnt realise what you did and why it borked your system in the end. This happens to Windows-Users too. I ended up reinstalling so many Windows machines and the user always told me they didnt do anything. I use Linux for about three years now and had to reinstall several times, because I made mistakes I couldn`t identify as mistakes at that moment. Sometimes Linux is complicated and you have to search for a solution. If you would have used Linux your whole life an switched to Windows, your experience would be very similar.

    • Hey, the other day I set up a fresh Arch install in like an hour; it was easy as hell with Arch Installer in its current state. But that’s me - I’ve been running Linux for a while, so i might be a bit out of touch with what new folks have issues with.

      That said, I think a lot of problems new users have with Linux really do come down to foolish mistakes, an unwillingness to read manuals, expecting Linux to work like Windows/Mac, or a combination of the above.
      Not all problems, but many.

  • Linux user here, also once upon a time a Windows admin. I think the most difficult thing for most users is not that Linux is difficult, but that it is different.

    Take Pop_OS for example. For the average “I check email and surf the web” user, it works wonderfully. But most people grew on Windows or Mac so its just not what they’re used to. Linux is kind of the stick shift to Windows and Mac’s automatic transmission… its not hard to learn, but most folk don’t choose to make the effort because they don’t need to.

  • The following sums up my experience with Linux thus far: “It’s never been easier for the newb to jump right in, but heavens help them if they ever stray from the straight path”.

    There’s been a lot of effort to make things easier for a newb (used to Windows and all that shit) to do what they need to do in most cases. There’s been all sorts of GUI-based stuff that means for the ‘average’ user, there’s really no need for them to interact with the command line. That’s all well and good until you need to do something that wasn’t accounted for by the devs or contributors.

    All of a sudden, you’d have not only to use the command line, you may also have to consult one of the following:

    • Well-meaning, easy to understand, but ultimately unhelpfully shallow help pages (looking at you, Libre Office), or the opposite: deep, dense, and confusing (Arch) Wiki pages.
    • One of the myriads of forum pages each telling the user to RTFM, “program the damned thing yourself”, “go back to Windows”, all of the above, or something else that delivers the same unhelpful message.
    • Ultra-dense and technical man pages of a command that might possibly be of help.

    And that’s already assuming you’ve got a good idea of what the problem was, or what it is that you are to do. Trouble-shooting is another thing entirely. While it’s true that Linux has tons of ways to make troubleshooting a lot easier, such as logs, reading through them is a skill a lot of us don’t have, and can’t be expected of some newb coming from Windows.

    To be fair to Linux though, 90% of the time, things are well and good. 9% of the time, there’s a problem here and there, but you’re able to resolve it with a little bit of (online) help, despite how aggravating some of that “help” might be. 1% of the time, however, Linux will really test your patience, tolerance, and overall character.

    Unfortunately, it’s that 10% that gives Linux its “hard to use” reputation, and the 1% gives enough scary stories for people to share.

    • This is all fair complaints about Linux, but I don’t really feel like windows is much better. I’ve had windows break on me or family members a lot over the years. Sure I’ve had some Linux distros break with an update and fail to boot (namely Manjaro), but windows has broken itself with updates dozens of times for me. The whole reason I started using Linux at all was because windows was breaking so often on my computer that I needed to try Linux to make sure my hardware wasn’t defective.

      You talk about having to fall back on the command line in Linux, but that’s also true on windows without 3rd party software. I’ve had to use windows command line utilities to fix drives with messed up partitions and to try to repair my windows install after windows update broke it. A couple weeks ago I had to help a friend on windows do checksums using the windows command line because windows doesn’t support that through the gui. Meanwhile dolphin on KDE let’s you do checksums in the gui from the file properties screen.

      I honestly feel like Linux isn’t really that much harder or more prone to breaking than windows, people just have less experience with it. The smaller user base means there’s a lot less help available online as well.

      • I was typing an earlier version of my reply to you when it got lost in the aether. Sorry, but I forgot about this bit which I shall be putting in a separate reply.

        people just have less experience with it. The smaller user base means there’s a lot less help available online as well.

        I agree with this, wholeheartedly. However, I think those who use Linux are a self-selecting sort. This means, unfortunately, that the type of person who might be able to best help a “typical Linux newb coming from Windows” isn’t using Linux in the first place, or have already gone long past the point of being able to be in a mindset best suited to help.

      • What I just said, on the whole, isn’t exclusive to Linux and can be applied to Windows as well (maybe except the “go back to Windows” mantra, and possibly the RTFM culture of Linux—but then again, the general refrain of LMGTFY is common enough for one to argue that a similar complaint exists in Windows as well).

        Having to fall back to the command-line, however, is generally a rare experience in Windows. I personally never have had any need to. However, that’s mostly because I was never a power user in Windows, and I’ve never had any experience like having to fix messed-up partitions. Windows have its own set of problems too, like the registry system.

        Whatever my complaints about Linux might be, it doesn’t make Windows any better. I am still daily-driving Linux for a reason (or several).

        The 90%, 10% and 1% thing I said at the end applies to Windows as well. It is a general rule of thumb I’ve mentioned to highlight that, the scary things oft-talked about Linux are a small percentage of what a user might encounter. And it’s even less, probably non-existent, if you stick to the “straight and narrow.”

  • There’s a lot of little things to you need to learn, that you don’t learn until actually messing around with in Linux which absolutely make or break your experience with Linux, and that Linux users will mock you for asking about.

    For a lot of people windows just works how they want it, so when they’re convinced to switch by a friend/family member/youtuber they now have to relearn what was incredibly easy for them, which absolutely will cause frustrations regardless.

    And a lot of Linux dudes get really defensive and elitist when you ask them to explain or help, like screaming that you’re afraid of the command line when you’ve just never needed to use it before. So the initial learning curve is rough, to het more or less what you had before(For an avg user)

    Like. I’m sorry, but having an issue keeping you from using your pc, and only getting advice to read the documentation of the distro, when you could have just kept windows, is going to frustrate people

  • I’ve been exclusively using Linux for almost a decade now. I started in high school when the computer we had at home was painfully slow with Windows. At start, it did seem a bit hard to wrap my head around. I was a kid, and there was no one who used Linux to teach me. I guess the installation etc. are much simpler nowadays. And the online spaces are much less toxic.

    Even after all that, the main reason, I believe, is that it’s different. If someone is using a stable distro like Debian, and just wants to do what 90% of people do (i.e. browsing, looking at documents media etc.), Linux isn’t really a hassle. The installation process might be daunting to some people. But after that, they don’t need to open a terminal ever if they don’t want to. My sister is basically tech illiterate, and she’s been running Mint for a few years now. Never heard any complaints. Only issue she had was when she deleted her .config folder. But I had set up a script that backed up dotfiles to her external drive, so it was easily fixable.

    People get frustrated because whenever something happens on Linux, and they go online, they see all these walls of text that they need to read, and commands they need to run. But they forget that on Windows and Macs, that isn’t even an option. Most of the time, you need to reset your system. Or, in the case of Macs, get it replaced. The frustration that people experience is caused by conditioning. They accept the inconveniences of Windows and Macs because they grew up with it. But since Linux is new to them, the shortcomings stick out much more.

    TL;DR: For the average user, the OS doesn’t matter (they should probably still use Linux for increased privacy). For the power user, unless some specific applications they need are missing, Linux is always the best choice. The frustration is mostly due to conditioning.

  • Every software generates errors, problems, and weird bullshit. The main difference I see in this regard, is that Linux usually explicitly tells you what’s wrong, and there is always at least couple of ways to deal with it. You have a range of solutions, you have paths to understand and fix the problem, or at least copy enough random commands from StackOverflow to either fix it or break it completely.
    With other OS you kind of stuck. Either your problem has a solution someone already thought of, or there is nothing to be done.
    As an example, my colleague and me bought the same bluetooth headset, and it didn’t work out of the box neither with his windows machine, nor with my Linux. He did the usual reinstall drivers - reboot - reconnect - google shit routine, didn’t find a solution, and returned the headset. I did my routine, found the patch for bt-pipewire app, applied it and it finally worked. Later he said “your Linux is stupid, you always have to do some complicated stuff with it, and my windows just works”, but I couldn’t hear him over the sound of music I was enjoying with my new working headset.

  • For most people computers are just the same as cars. People want a car that will drive them from place to place, are easy to refuel, easy to operate, and can be taken to an expert for anything difficult or that requires specialized knowledge. Same for computers. Most people want a computer to navigate the web, install the apps they are used to and that their friends use, is easy to operate, and can be taken to an expert for any involved work.

    Even the friendliest of Linux distro don’t check all those boxes. You cant get ready support from a repair shop, many of the apps are different or function differently, and it doesn’t receive all the same love and attention from major third party developers as Windows does.

    Most people could learn to use Linux; it’s not that hard. Most people could learn to change their own oil. But for most people, it’s not worth it. For most people it’s not the journey, it’s the destination and cars and computers are just tools to get there.

    • Honestly, I wouldn’t mind being more knowledgeable about cars. I’m just afraid to touch anything, because I figure I’ll break it and incur a massive bill to replace whatever part I broke. PC operating systems carry no such risk; you can give up on whatever you’re trying and reinstall your old OS at any time without paying anyone anything.

      Even PC hardware isn’t that risky to tinker with. It’s an order of magnitude cheaper than a car; lots of people have old, obsolete, but perfectly functional PCs lying around that they’d like taken off their hands; most components are within easy reach; and the component that isn’t within easy reach (the power supply unit) is pretty tough to break.

    • To expand on this metaphor:

      Windows and Macs are like automatic cars, for all the people who just use it to get to a destination, it’s the obvious and easiest option.

      However, some people want manuals. Maybe they want it to race in the car (coding, resource intensive tasks, speed of computer, etc.). Maybe they just like the feel of a manual. Maybe they want to be able to control when the gears change more. Maybe they want to optimize the car for just one purpose. There are many reasons people might want a manual instead.

  • If you want a fair comparison between Windows, MacOS and Linux then I think its wrong to compare distros that don’t come pre-installed when you buy your device.

    Not one single MacBook owner had to install their OS and configure drivers etc. None of my family, friends or coworkers had to install Windows on any of their PCs (I know that some people do but not in any of my social circles).

    Consider Pop_OS from System76 or Tuxedo OS from Tuxedo Computers, they have identical user experiences as Mac or PC:

    Step 1: Buy computer Step 2: Turn on Step 3: Answer some one time setup questions Step 4: Get on with your life

    If you have the opportunity to build your own PC and fresh install an OS from scratch then when you come across a problem that you don’t have experience with you will be understandably frustrated.

    Specifically Windows has the advantage that hardware manufactures always make drivers for Windows. If your hardware is supported then the Linux OS installation is not very different, but when the hardware is not plug-and-play then configuring Linux becomes its own kind of frustration torture.

    TL;DR Get your computer with the OS already installed, then Linux is no more frustrating than a Mac or PC. Install Linux yourself and your mileage may vary.

    • Yep which is why if you wanna try Linux I’d say get a Steamdeck. At the very least, you won’t have to deal with driver/hardware problems. Lead with the hardware and the software will follow. Certainly worked pretty well for Apple.

  • My first experience with linux was Ubuntu. Sue me, it was listed under most “most user friendly distro” listicles when I wasn’t smart enough to realize those were mostly marketing.

    It worked fine for my purposes, though it took getting used to, but it would wake itself up from sleep after a few minutes. I would have to shut it off at night so that I wouldn’t wake up in a panic as an eerie light emanated through the room from my closed laptop. I did my best searching for the problem, but could never find a solution that worked; in retrospect, I probably just didn’t have the language to adequately describe the problem.

    Nothing about the GUI was well-documented to the degree that CLI apps were. If I needed to make any changes, there would be like one grainy video on youtube that showed what apps to open and buttons to click and failed to solve my problem, but a dozen Stack Exchange articles telling me exactly what to do via the terminal.

    I remember going off on some friends online when they tried to convince me Linux and the terminal were superior. I ranted about how this stupid sleep issue was indicative of larger, more annoying problems that drove potential users away. I raged about how hostile to users this esoteric nerds-only UX is. I cried about Windows could be better for everyone if the most computer-adept people would stop jumping ship for mediocre OSes.

    I met another friend who used Arch (btw) within a year from that hissy fit, and she fixed my laptop within minutes. Using a CLI app nonetheless. I grumbled angrily to myself.

    A few years later and everyone’s home all the time for some reason, and I get the wild idea that I’m going to be a(n ethical) hacker for whatever reason. I then proceeded to install Kali on a VM and the rest is history.

    The point being that some people labor under the misguided belief that technology should conform to the users, and because we were mostly raised on Windows or Mac, we develop the misconception that those interfaces are “intuitive” (solely because we learned them during the best time in our life to pick up new skills). Then you try to move to linux for whatever reason and everything works differently and the process is jarring and noticeably requires the user conforming to the technology–i.e. changing bad habits learned from other OSes to fit the new one. The lucky few of us go on to learn many other OSes and start to see beyond the specifics to the abstract ideas similar to all of them, then it doesn’t matter if you have to work with iOS or TempleOS, you understand the basics of how it all fits together.

    TL;DR Category theorists must be the least frustrated people alive

      • Category Theory is an attempt to understand all of math (including conputer science) as simply different instances of abstract conceprs, called categories. The way I’ve managed to understand OSes as abstract systems rather than entirely unique beasts is how I imagine category theorists must see all of computer science

        It’s a freeing paradigm shift once you realize that your understanding is broad enough that you can transfer your knowledge from one OS to another, therefore the joke is that since Category Theorists have the broadest knowledge, they must deal with the least amount of frustrations learning a new system

  • I’ve been using Linux for so long that it’s hard for me to give an approximation of what a new user might find challenging, but I think that something important to remember is that computers are hard. I’ve spent my entire life studying computers and I’m still learning every day.

    Most people grew up with Windows and learned how to use it over the years, but remember that it took years, and most of them still aren’t very good at it. Linux requires different knowledge than Windows, but it doesn’t inherently mean that it’s harder. If everyone grew up using Linux we wouldn’t hear about “how hard Linux is” but instead about “how hard Windows is”.

    At least when something is broken in Linux, it probably has a cause (usually the user) and solution, and a way to debug what happened. When something breaks in Windows you’ve got about 3 things you can try before the solution is to reinstall.

    As for solutions, I don’t know if there’s a certified pathway into Linux - I think installing something like Linux Mint and just using it like a computer would go a long way towards getting you comfortable with how Linux works without forcing you to study. Once you’re comfortable using the GUI, you can take a peek behind the scenes at your leisure - there is documentation everywhere for everything on Linux.

    • When Windows 3.1 came out I had a hard time understanding any of it and never left my cozy DOS CLI with its Norton Commander.

      Granted I was still a child, but one might think that mouse-first and colorfulness would have driven my curiosity. Instead I switched when Windows 95 arrived.

    • When something breaks in Windows you’ve got about 3 things you can try before the solution is to reinstall.

      From the point of view of a lifetime Windows guy, I have to disagree with this. Unless you have a malware problem (where it can be exceedingly difficult for the average user to know whether they’ve gotten everything out), almost all failures of Windows in the modern age are the result of hardware failures. If your Windows 7 or newer computer blue screens, it’s very likely a bad piece of hardware, occasionally a bad driver. The OS itself is quite solid.

      … there is documentation everywhere for everything on Linux.

      In my experience and perspective, I’ve found the documentation for Linux things to be of varying quality and usually for an audience who already knows their way around Linux. Admittedly, I haven’t had to go looking in quite a while, so maybe that landscape is different today than I am aware of - but when I was looking, I found myself quite frustrated more often than not.

      Finally, with Windows, if you really have to, you can pay for support incidents from Microsoft. They’re not cheap, but I’ve found their server and server application support to be reliable. Is there something like that available to a Linux user?

      • I don’t have a ton of experience with Windows lately, but from trying to troubleshoot family members’ PCs, it usually ends up being corrupted drivers or bricked bootloaders/failed updates.

        As for documentation, the Arch wiki (and Gentoo wiki, Debian wiki, etc. etc.) is usually a good source of information for general topics, but there’s also decades of forums and stackexchange posts on various problems if you’re just using a search engine. Every program also has extensive official man pages on how to use them (example), and you can even use something like tldr to shorten the man pages into something usable right now (example). If you’re willing to read documentation, everything you use on Linux probably has a manual behind it.

        With regards to paying for support, it’s not really my wheelhouse but to my understanding that’s what companies like Canonical, SUSE, and Red Hat offer.

      • | If your Windows 7 or newer computer blue screens, it’s very likely a bad piece of hardware, occasionally a bad driver. The OS itself is quite solid.

        Okay, really, though? Windows is solid and good because it doesn’t kernel panic much? Who’s getting kernel panics out of Linux without faulty hardware or doing something risky? I think you’ve equivocated a bit here: either we’re comparing kernel to kernel or we’re comparing userland to userland. You’re comparing Windows itself to Linux userland or using some kernel even freakier than the weird patched-up stuff I like to play with.

        I feel like discussion of this topic is plagued by double standards and shifting goalposts :-\ Apples to oranges comparisons, refusals to even consider things just because they’re ‘foreign,’ blaming “Linux” for things that really aren’t its fault (neither in the OS sense nor in the broader sense) … including of course (sometimes) turning the discussion into an “us versus them” thing. Software on Linux has iffy documentation! … But the same software exists on Windows, or the equivalent(s) is(/are) just as bad. Linux kernel documentation is scary or weird! … But no one relevant is touching it anyway and wasn’t touching Windows kernel anything either. The UI is different! Yeah, so’s the new one on every version of Windows you get forced into. Casual Windowsers all hate it every time but somehow “Linux” is unusable because they won’t learn a new UI unless Microsoft tells them to.

        You can buy (a licence to, if MS likes you lots, borrow) a copy of Windows and apparently buy support for it too… yeah okay, but that’s business, not a software issue. There are enterprise distros and software packages with all’ that business-type support, unless they’ve all vanished? That’s how that stuff works, no?

        I’m not demanding anyone switch and distro hop over the course of months to find a distro they love but I’d really prefer to see some more fairness discussing the matter. “Linux” is never going to be “usable on desktop” if it’s always just the enemy to be spurned and derided.

        (Also, sorry this got so wordy. It’s not meant as a diatribe, just I feel like there’s a lot to say and I’m not saying much of it 🤷‍♀)
        TLDR: It’s unfair or outright dishonest to blame an apple for not being tart enough and hide that your actual standard is “is it an orange.”

        • Windows auto-recovers from almost any issue the average user might encounter. It cannot be understated just how hard it is for an application or driver to break modern Windows. It goes much farther than just fixing a kernel panic. It will reset to a serviceable state for almost anything you can think of ( e.g. bad display settings, borked application install) and even in the worst situation will still give you some sort of GUI and try to walk you through the problem.

          Linux sort of just gives up and lets you shoot yourself in the foot if you really ask it to. It’s up to you to then figure out how to fix things and that usually involves diving into the terminal. But even ignoring that, a lot of Linux applications have a serious UI/UX problem. I cannot count how many applications just do things like throw a config file at you even for common tasks and expect you to read a doc page in order to figure it out. I have better things to do than read yet another wall of text just to do something simple like remapping key bindings (e.g. mpv). That would be an unthinkable thing to do to a Windows user.

          Linux developers seem to want to develop software for other developers. Windows developers develop software for average people. The fragmentation of 1000s of Linux distros, each with their own quirks only make matters worse by further complicating where and how to get help.

    • I’ve been using Linux for so long that it’s hard for me to give an approximation of what a new user might find challenging

      The average person would fail on step 0 of Installing the OS. In fact 90% of the problem could be attributed to Linux distros not coming preinstalled on PCs sitting in big box stores.

      All of Linux’s success stories for the average user (Android, Steam Deck, Chrome book) have one thing in common. They are low cost, simple, purpose built for very specific tasks with a bunch of exclusive games/software that people want to use. We need to start looking at PCs almost like they are highly moddable game consoles. It should come with the expectation that most users don’t want to leave the comfort of the walled garden.

  • Nearly everyone forgets how hard windows was to learn initially.

    I spent the better part of a child hood and the first 10 years of an IT career learning it. Does that sound like a simple or easy system? Conversely I’ve spent slightly less time but an equal 10 years of an IT career learning and supporting Linux. I’ve only recently in the last 3 or so years started to feel like I truly grasp Linux and started using it as a daily driver on personal machines.

    I now find Windows absolutely horrible to work with. All the nonsense MS foists on it’s users. The inflexibility. The weird choices. The licensing nonsense.

    The bottom line is not that Linux is harder. It’s that Linux is different and different is scary and uncomfortable. Different is hard, not linux. People are lazy and creatures of habit. We like familiar. Few of us actually enjoy the work of learning something new that isn’t easy. If we did more of us would probably be pilots or engineers or whatever hard thing to learn you want to choose.

    If you’re into computers and you still find it hard or constraining keep at it. The Ah, ha! moment is coming. There’s a paradigm shift in thinking you’ll hit and suddenly you’ll get it. When you do you’ll find it’s magnificent and powerful and freeing.

  • When I was a child we had basic computer literacy classes in elementary school. They showed you how to get around Windows and use computers a bit. Somehow, I doubt that those kinds of classes ever taught Linux.

    But the real problem I think is that Linux distros also never had Microsoft’s budget to develop, assemble, test, and release the operating system + software suite. The fact that Linux is as good as it is in spite of that is really something special.

      • Learned helplessness. People just get stuck on their ways. I guess it’s just a feature of getting older. Your brain becomes less and less malleable. Ironically challenging yourself would probably help with that.

    • Back when I was in school, we had typing classes. I’m not sure if that’s because I’m younger than you and they assumed we has basic computer literacy, or older than you and they assumed we couldn’t type at all. In either case, we used Macs.

      It wasn’t until university that we even had an option to use Linux on school computers, and that’s only because they have a big CS program. They’re also heavily locked-down Ubuntu instances that re-image the drive on boot, so it’s not like we could tinker much or learn how to install anything.

      Unfortunately—at least in North America—you really have to go out of your way to learn how to do things in Linux. That’s just something most people don’t have the time for, and there’s not much incentive driving people to switch.


      A small side note: I’m pretty thankful for Valve and the Steam Deck. I feel like it’s been doing a pretty good job teaching people how to approach Linux.

      By going for a polished console-like experience with game mode by default, people are shown that Linux isn’t a big, scary mish-mash of terminal windows and obscure FOSS programs without a consistent design language. And by also making it possible to enter a desktop environment and plug in a keyboard and mouse, people can* explore a more conventional Linux graphical environment if they’re comfortable trying that.

  • In my experience, when Linux works, it’s beautiful (yay package managers). But once you have an issue or go off the beaten path, it can get complex and confusing very quickly. You’ll find a perfect fix… oh wait, that’s for Red Hat. This is Ubuntu and everything is different.

    This man page is thirty pages long and has in depth descriptions of all fifty switches in alphabetical order, but all i want is an example on how to do a very simple, common thing with it. And of course, all commands have their own syntax (of course windows isn’t any better, outside of Powershell).

    Don’t curl to bash, it’s dangerous. But heaven help the adventurer that tries to do the install manually. And building from the source? Hah!

    The registry gets a ton of shit, and yes, it can be opaque and confusing, but hundreds of text files in hundreds of random directories (that might be a different place on a different distro), all with their own syntax, isn’t necessarily all that more intuitive.

    You want this to work differently? Then code a fix yourself! What do you mean you’re not a programmer?

    I had multiple Ubuntu installs stop updating because the installer by default made the /boot partition (IIRC) something like 100MB. Do a couple updates and that gets filled up with unused files, and then apt craps itself. And this wasn’t all too long ago - well after the point it was supposed to be the district for the everyman.

    Like you, I want to like it more, but it’s never smooth sailing. Granted, a lot of that is familiarity with Windows (and believe me, many curses have been thrown MS’s way), but it always seems to turn into a struggle.

      • I don’t agree with this. I would rather go with, in Windows if stuff breaks, you reinstall the app, you reinstall the OS and if that doesn’t work ditch the whole thing. In Linux, when something doesn’t work, you are provided information regarding why and how, which is complicated but allows you to fix the issue or share the information with others who will help you figure out what to do.

  • Ubuntu LTS almost never does the things described without user intervention. E.g. breaking over time, apt not working. The most important thing I learned about Linux and Ubuntu was that I was breaking it. Once I drilled that into my head and began learning what not to do, it stopped breaking over time. My main system hasn’t been reinstalled since 2016. And that’s only because I was bored and reinstalled it at the time. Friends have Ubuntu LTS systems that they’ve had woking for over a decade, moved over several hardware configs during that time.

    With that I have this advice for the newer users:

    • Use Ubuntu LTS. Almost everything else has an extra level of complexity or several that aren’t obvious when you first start using them. Yes even user-friendly Ubuntu derivatives. Ubuntu LTS has an extremely large test base so defects are few. It’s also stable so the number of defects generally declines over time for a given release.
    • Use the canonical sources of information for Ubuntu. Askubuntu.com, the Ubuntu wiki, the Ubuntu forums, man pages. The Debian wiki can be useful too. Arch’es wiki becomes useful when you begin to know what you’re doing so you can translate what’s there to Ubuntu.
    • Don’t use YouTube for that or random sites that have SEOd themselves to the top of Google. Or ChatGPT.
    • The first question you should ask when something breaks is “What did I do wrong?”. Trace your steps. Answer it. Fix it and don’t do it again. E.g. something that should work without sudo doesn’t, so you run it with sudo. A true classic.

    I know many here won’t like me suggesting Ubuntu, but the reality is that throwing new users elsewhere is often a disservice to them. Even Debian, which I use too. The proliferation of “Ubuntu bad” across the newer slivers of the community has been just “bad” for those new users. There’s a lot of us that can help support new users but we can’t do that in places where the “Just try X distro instead” comments outnumber us 10 to 1. In addition there’s so much misinformation thrown around as fact that we just can’t compete. The D-K level is too damn high.jpg

    Source: I’ve used Linux for 19-years and professionally since 2012, for more use cases than I can count.