Linux

If you're actually expecting people to transition without asking for help on a regular basis, you don't know people.

You just made yourself their IT guy for life.

No, it's better to be honest. The average user isn't ready for Linux, because Linux is not ready for the average user. I'd never try and get someone to use it if they're not already interested. I hate that it is this way, but it is. Linux is only really for people who already want to use it. Because if you're not interested in using it, you're not going to put forth the time investment to gain the benefits from it. No matter what angle I look at it from Linux is not for the average person.

Your second paragraph says it all. Find out if the user needs to dual boot? The answer is obviously "No" because no matter what they're using the computer for, Linux is unneeded for them, since they have Windows. There are tangible benefits to using Windows, since it runs their software, meanwhile, you failed to list any real benefits to using Linux for the average user. It's faster? No, not really, since they'll be learning how to use it, and even ignoring that, it's not so much faster that they'll perceive it anyway. It's more secure? Not really, Windows is the better choice for the average user in that respect, since it'll automatically force them to restart the machine every week to install security updates. Main choice of professionals? That's not entirely true, and even if it were, it's not relevant, the average user is not a professional. And for anyone who already owns a computer already running Windows, Windows was 'free' too.

The only time to have this discussion is if the user is having a PC built, and then the answer is also "No" to Linux, because they're going to buy Windows anyway, since it's better for gaming, and that's the primary reason for someone to build a PC, unless they're doing a specialized task like video editing, and if they are invested enough into the task to want a PC just for that, they have specialized software that almost always runs only on Windows, and even if it were able to run on either, it's not my place to alter their workflow.

The real elitist attitude is thinking people need to use Linux in the first place. For me and (maybe) you, it might get the job done, but for my family and friends. It's better that they use what they're comfortable with. The main point of a computer is to accomplish tasks, and giving them Linux is a hindrance to that.

Linux is great, but it's not for everyone, and it may never be.

Stop being elitist.

Use linux mint.

Why linux mint?

It's like ubuntu but no snaps.

What's ubuntu?

It's like debian but not as stable. You'll get more recent apps in ubuntu, test them, and when they are tested companies use the apps in debian.

Ok, What are snaps?

You can install packages with snap, but it's proprietary.

Ok, that's bad?

Yes. Foss apps are great and better than proprietary garbage.

Ok, foss good, proprietary garbage.

Why debian and not fedora?

Because all apps are build for it.

So it's like aur?

No. Aur is made by users for users. Builds on debian are mostly official.

So the package manager is better on debian?

Yes, kind of.

I heard of distrobox. I could use the package manager on any distro.

Yes, but it's easier at the beginning to stick to one distro and package manager to get used to it.

Why not arch?

It's too unstable.

Ok, no arch distro. I heard manjaro is good.

No, it holds back packages for no reason.

Ok. What about fedora?

It doesn't have as many packages.

But it has the copr, aren't there a lot of apps?

Yes, but it's like aur, it's build by users. Debian builds are good, stable and widely used.

Ok. What about nix? I heared it's the new arch and there are even more packages.

Yes, but It's not for newbies.

What is an immutable system? I heared that's the next big thing.

It's like android an image based operating system where you can't brick your system by accident with rm -rf /

What's rm -rf /?

Just test it in a terminal, it's fun.

How can I play games?

You install steam.

Do I have to configure anything?

Hopefully not

Can I only use linux mint?

No you can use any distro, they are all linux. You can choose whatever you want. Just choose mint.

Why mint?

It has no snaps.

What do I use instead?

Flatpaks

If I use flatpaks, why does the package manager matter so much?

Because not all apps are available as flatpacks, especially command line tools. Snaps has cli but it's proprietary.

Can't I just use any distro and use a debian distrobox for those packages I need from debian?

Yes, use linux mint, it's easy to use.

Do I actually need all those packages? I only use word and steam.

No, probably not.

Why not using ubuntu and install flatpaks?

Because ubuntu sucks.

But isn't mint based on ubuntu?

Yes, but it has no snaps.

Can't I just use debian?

Yes, but it doesn't have the latest packages.

How do I install word?

You can't. You can use the online version.

That's a lot to understand. Can't I just windows? I only open steam anyway.

Yes, but it's proprietary.

Steam is also proprietary.

Yes, but you xan play games with it on linux.

But if steam is proprietary, and windows is proprietary, and I mainly use steam anyway, does it even matter?

What's a DE?

Linux mint uses cinnamon, it's cool!

I saw some KDE screemshots. It looks cool and everyone talks about it. There's a big release coming in a few weeks. how do I install it?

You usually don't mix DEs unless you know what you do.

I don't.

Then don't mix it.

But I want to use KDE. Which distro should I use? Kubuntu?

No, it uses snaps like ubuntu.

...

No. Mint is fine for my dad who uses a browser and an email program and nothing else. I'm not gonna recommend it to people who do a lot more with their machines. I can tell them I use Linux and they can ask me anything if they are ever curious about making the switch, but that is it. If they don't make the conscious decision to use Linux, then they won't stick with it anyways.

There’s 0 need for Linux to grow. It powers 80% of new web-apps, runs the big gaming systems, parts of azure and aws. It’s the go-to server os for most use-cases.

The Linux desktop needs to mature if it’s to grow. Non-tech users don’t care for “new and innovative ux paradigms”. They don’t wanna scan the internet to figure out why sound is missing after upgrading to pop_os 4. That or they need someone close by to fix it for free

People who daily drive Linux are not the ones who spread the old idea that it's "too techy".

I don't buy the whole "the more users a software has, the better it gets" rhetoric. Historically this has been the opposite of the case. There's an even higher users-to-contributors ratio amongst the general population. Not all users share the same respect for the philosophy behind FOSS.

If the driving force behind design decisions becomes "what keeps people happy so they'll keep using our software" and not "freedom," there's now a practical incentive to sell out and introduce more Intellectual Property shenanigans into the ecosystem. After all, it's a lot easier to hire devs and churn out new features and keep the software actively developed for the foreseeable future if there's money in it. And the only way there can be money in it is if there are proprietary licenses shitting up the place, and Shit As A Service suscription models as far as the eye can see.

Linux always has been, and should always continue to be, about freedom. If that freedom comes with user-friendliness, great! If not, then we have to pay the price: taking responsibility for the tools and tech we use and learning how to use them properly and contributing to them to maintain a community of likeminded people. Otherwise, we're not worthy of the freedom and the responsibilities it entails.

I get your point about elitism and gatekeeping. We're no better than Windows users or Mac users or any other OS' users. We just have a set of values unique to our community, and they have sets of values that differ. We also shouldn't be throwing users under the bus in the name of politics, but part of what makes Linux slightly more bearable is the way the driving philosophy of Free Software is evident throughout. Linux is better than it could be because it attracts the people who want to be here for the community's values, not the people who have to be coaxed and coerced into accepting the values to use the "best"/"easiest"/"friendliest" software.

This is gonna cause more harm than good. The reason people think it's techy is because it is. I would recommend linux to my grandma and someone who loves tech. The middleground runs into a lot of issues for doing anything beyond basic computer stuff.

This post gives me the vibe of someone desperately trying to get people to buy the cryptocurrency they're invested in. Particularly the part where only the good is mentioned and the bad is omitted.

Some linux people are pretty elitist though, and it's not helping the cause. but in the same way, i dont think pretending that it's the greatest thing since sliced tea is much better.

Things are fine until one day they need to plug this random peripheral/accessory and it's not plug and play. Then they hate you forever

I don't often suggest Linux to friends or family, because I don't want to be on the hook for tech support. I also don't want to be the blamed party when they inevitably give up, and be obligated to reinstall their old OS.

Linux is growing naturally. There's little reason to suggest it to someone who won't benefit from it.

EDIT: I want to clarify, I appreciate the spirit of your post. But I also want to call out, that it just isn't the best choice for most people.

If someone comes to me I'm more than happy to answer questions and help, but I won't bring it up. People don't like being told that their tool of choice is "bad" "not optimal" or anything like that. Even if it's only their choice because they grew up with it or don't want to learn anything new. And they still need to learn if it's more than browsing the web.

Also I really don't want to be the one they come running to once something doesn't work the way they expected - or not at all. I don't have the time nor the inclination to be tech support for my family and half of my friends.

I don’t think anyone who isn’t already curious about Linux should install Linux. And I sure as hell am not going to try to convince anyone and be blamed for not being able to use adobe products.

But you’re forgetting the most important thing—people don’t want to change. They want a big corporation to tie themselves to because brand loyalty is a replacement for the need to learn.

Linux isn’t going to replace your phone with AppleCare. Linux doesn’t have a support line to bitch to or a geek squad to call. In fact, most of the places your typical user would think to go for support will likely balk at a Linux system because they aren’t power users either—just employees trained for a specific service.

I love Linux. I flirt with going 100% FOSS all the time. But I wouldn’t recommend it for my mom. All the free security in the world couldn’t replace the value of being able to tell her “take it to Apple and let them fix it for you”.

So yes, I’m with you, but I also think we need to acknowledge that all tools serve a purpose, and some people prefer the kids meal over the big boy buffet—and that’s ok.

But please don't give unsolicited advice about Linux. No one wants that.

Good luck but as someone who is techy, Linux drives me insane every time I use it. Yes, it's a skill issue. I think that's sort of the nature of the problem regarding Linux adoption.

I'm capable, a quick learner interested in learning, good at following step by step instructions, and am really good at teaching others once I've learned it.

I've been on and off Linux for at least 8 years now and I feel like I end up hating it more and more each time I work with it. I will say, all of them are hobby projects of things that I just want, or tried to replace something from Windows by using my server.

I'm sure if it was just basic web browsing it would be fine, but I inevitably want to do something so I look for how to do it, follow a guide or the documentation and inevitably 5 steps in something goes wrong. Like, I genuinely can't think of a single instance where I've been able to follow a step-by-step outside of the Steam Deck and have it actually work the first time.

That aside, usually the amount of networking that has to be done manually is what gets me, bonus points if you are double natted.

Docker has made things better but it's still a pain in the ass for me. I enjoy working with computers and software but more often than not I do not enjoy my time working with Linux and by the time I finally get something working I am just wishing I hadn't wasted all my time trying to get it working, and wishing that I didn't care so much about this. Cause if I didn't care I could happily live without home assistant and my server. But I do care, so I have to work on it.

It's genuinely frustrating. Something as simple as Stable Diffusion - literally a git clone command - something I've set up a dozen times on Windows installs, just will not work on my server because it decides something is wrong following the install.

This whole time running Linux there have only been 2 things that I rarely have problems with. The first is Plex, since I first installed it on a RasPi using DietPi I've had nothing but good, smooth experiences. Once in a while there would be a hiccup but it was straightforward enough. The most difficult Plex has ever been is on my recent server build with an NVIDIA card, just getting hardware transcoding to work (which it at least recognizes the GPU now so I think it is). Oh, and stupid fucking permissions. God I hate permissions.

The other has been my Steam Deck, where I've had no issues through and through, from modding to random installs.

Anyway, I'm ranting like this because I'm so frustrated with Linux's ease of use/access. Technology has gotten so much easier to use that it feels insanely archaic being forced to tell Linux every specific little thing to or not to do. What's more frustrating is when you are following the documentation and it never mentions what to do if ______ doesn't work, it just continues on.

So all told... As someone who is confident with technology and familiar with Linux, I just have a hard time believing that someone who can hardly use an iPhone will have an enjoyable experience trying to, say, watch Netflix on Linux. I'd like to believe it, maybe my experiences have me biased.

And before anyone comes at me, I hate and get frustrated with Windows too, but I use it because when I try and do something it works, usually in a quarter of the working time. Surprising considering it's Windows, but of all the projects I've tried to do on both Windows has a much higher success rate. Like almost 100%. Off the top of my head the only thing I couldn't get working was DizqueTV on a Windows-Plex server (which ended up being why I moved it to Linux). Funny enough, DizqueTV wouldn't work on my Linux install either because of my ISP.

FOSS takes your time, not your money.

I generally disagree with trying to get people to use linux now. Im seeing a lot of people leaving linux and getting turned off by the idea of it.

Aside from outliers like Android and Chrome OS, I do not think Linux is in a suitable state for non-techy people to use unfortunately. I'm really hoping PopOS will be able to change things in the future, however as it stands I really don't think it is ready for prime time.

Users expect things that kind of just work and Linux Mint has not been that experience for me. I found the app store to be kind of annoying to use and complicated. The settings app were not very well laid out and miscellaneous stuff like that, which kind of ruins the experience.

Meanwhile, there are just general Linux issues to accessibility becoming worse and worse instead of better. You have issues like we still don't have a distro with good wine integration so people can use the apps they actually need to use. The apps that we do have natively, are oftentimes relatively... janky. If you're comparing Libreoffice to Microsoft Office, the experience is just not the same, even if the technical capability is.

EDIT: I want Linux to succeed just as much as anybody else. In fact, I think I might want it to succeed more because I absolutely detest maintaining Windows installs. However, lying about the state of Linux and being dishonest about it is not the way to go about this. We should be honest with all of its issues, so to speak. So that way we can strive to make them better instead of ignoring them and sweeping them under the rug for the people we tell to trial and to find instead.

People can make their own choices. I have 6-7 Linux machines, and asked my brother to install it too. He hated the experience. He bought a Mac at the end, and he's very happy with it. Some people just don't want Linux. They don't care about its philosophy, or that it's free. They want an ecosystem, and a status symbol.

As much as I like the premise, the average Joe doesn’t care.

It is techy, as long as it’s not seamless to transition, average person won’t bother.

What a person knows already > all of the other benefits. That’s why people use Photoshop and not GIMP.

If they need to dual boot, forget it. “Can’t I just use windows instead if I have to switch anyway?”

If they can’t install it themselves, they won’t bother learning the system. Say what you want but I think Windows still shits itself less than Linux. And when it does there is a lot more people who can help without typing in cryptic commands into the terminal.

For Linux to become more popular, more open standards would need to be mainstream. Leave Adobe, MS Office and other proprietary software that everyone uses. It’s like asking people to stop using PDFs because YOU a techy person think MD is better or whatever.

Linux is not ready for mainstream users. I daily drive Mint, have a recent (2 year old) system, and still run into annoying bugs that would drive non-techies back to Windows. My current issue is my permanently attached external hdd mounting under a new folder name every reboot. Other issues I've had to resolve include (but are not limited to) bluetooth, graphics drivers, software repos, etc. I would not want to become tech support for somebody else dealing with their random issues because I recommended Linux.

Why does it need to grow? Seems fine the way it is now.

Stop doing this. Just be normal.

I do not believe, at all, that linux needs to grow. We don't need to appeal to every casual pc user, because for most of these people what they are using already works just fine for them - and if they don't already have the drive to learn about and try linux on their own, there's no reason to shove it in their faces.

I really don't understand why so many advocate for Linux, FOSS, and an overall open web while actively making Linux and other free software as complicated and "tech-y" as possible.

If Linux isn't growing, what's the point? If it remains stagnant, its getting closer to fading away. We've seen the impact of Linux becoming more mainstream and known to the general public through the Steam Deck, and it has done wonders for the platform. Why do people actively not want it to grow?

Helping it grow doesn't mean being annoying like Edge pop-ups, simply throwing out suggestions to try easy-to-use distros here and there. And let's be honest, the average internet user can use an easy distro like Ubuntu or Mint proficiently after 20-30 minutes of playing around with it. We need to make it seem accessible so that more people will actually be interested in the first place.

Really happy to see a post being made about this.

Hehe, I think it's more the Windows people who spread that urban legend. While I completely agree with you, I didn't learn anything new here 😉

Are we usually being elitist? I mean, you could dig on the forums for people being toxic and looking down on "newbs", but you can find that in both Windows and MacOS places. Honestly, this post could be considered elitist, because you are saying that people should be using Linux rather than Windows or MacOS.

IMO the problem with most kinds of Linux evangelism is that some people push it too much. They say to people that they should use Linux and it's better for XYZ reasons. While usually true, it puts the person in a defensive state and a desire to prove you wrong. After all, Windows has been fine for their entire life, why should they switch to something new?

Personally, I think the better option would be to work on letting people know that Linux exists, and is rather user friendly. Make them know it's an option for them to fall back on if they need to. And then at some point they'll get frustrated by Windows, and think "maybe I should try that Linux thing". They'll be more willing to try it and work with it because it was their idea, and they want to prove to themselves that trying it was the correct move. Fundamentally people should want to use Linux, not feel made to use it because it's the correct decision.

easier to use

Is it? A lot of talk has gone into Windows only being "easy to use" because people are used to it... But isn't that not just what being "easy to use" means? I'm a Linux user, I find Linux easier to use than Windows or MacOS because I've used it more. A MacOS user would find MacOS easier than Windows or Linux. That's just how it works.

You could make reference to things like UI design, interface layout and so on, but nobody is coming to an OS from a vacuum. They will have prior notions of how things should work from the OSes that they're familiar with, and complying with those notions will make things seem "easier" to them.

main choices of professionals

Don't most professionals use software that is only available on Windows or Mac? Like Adobe stuff?

They don’t understand distros, just pick Linux Mint LTS Cinnamon unless they’re curious.

Strong agree. We argue about distros a lot and we hype it up to be much more important than it really is. Either install Mint with Cinnamon, * mumbles * with KDE or * mumbles * with Gnome. Show them screenshots and ask them which they like the look of. Let them know they can switch it easily if they wish.

1. copy down your windows product key

I think nowadays Windows product keys are linked to your Microsoft account? Not sure how that works with OEM keys though (which most people with legitimate keys will probably be using). I think a physical code with numbers hasn't been used for a while now.

4. use rufus (a website) to put the iso on a usb flash drive

Why Rufus and not Etcher? Genuinely curious, Etcher seems to be the most recommended one.

7. erase the storage and install

I don't know why this seems to be an uncommon sentiment but new users should be using a dual boot. Like, this is not the time to commit to 100% full time being a Linux user. If someone tries it and doesn't like it they should be able to go back to Windows. Or maybe they want to use Windows software or games? Or even are just afraid of the commitment.

I'd consider myself a hardcore Linux user, but I still have a Windows install. There's no reason to delete it unless you are very constrained on space.

If they don't like Linux then they'd have to go through the trouble of reinstalling and reconfiguring Windows, which is not something I'd wish on anyone.

it takes 15 minutes.

It'll take longer than 15 minutes. Not everyone has a high speed internet connection, USB drive, storage or CPU. And once the installer is complete, you'll probably have to browse forums and guides for that one piece of hardware that should work but doesn't. And then spend some time configuring and installing all the programs you want to use. It's certainly something you should budget a full afternoon to at least.

Things are about to get worse for onboarding those from other platforms. There’s been this massive push the last year to get every window manager to switch to Wayland & drop X11 support… meanwhile Wayland doesn’t support color profiles or color management (just sRGB). How are you going to convince someone with an awesome screen to drop down to sRGB? How will you convince someone with a poor screen that has been color calibrated to make it usable to go back to off colors? How do you expect content creators to migrate & still create content if they can’t have access to all the color tools they use in their workflow to come to Linux when Wayland won’t support them? A lot of Linux folk act like this doesn’t matter, but to a lot of people, a computer is a magic box that they interact with via a screen + keyboard + mouse, & if non-niche peripherals aren’t supported (which DCI-P3 is becoming the norm & saving a screen from a landfill can often be fixed to ‘good enough’ thru calibration), users will think it’s trash & unfinished.

NOPE. Every time I do it, I have to give them a lot of help and I end up becoming their technical support staff; my quota is already full, I've done my part.