Lack of backwards compatibility for older versions of software/games requiring older libs. All I see it lots of pointing back and forwards but it doesn’t get solved.
Lack of legacy drivers for graphics cards. I want to run a new distribution on my old hardware, using graphics acceleration and no screen-tearing. Is that too much to ask?
If a program is executed through a wm, have it submit errors to the wm as well so I can see why it’s not running, instead of seeing a loading cursor for 2 seconds and then nothing.
I want to be able to do 99-100% of what I want to do using a GUI. Even installing drivers and changing settings. I don’t want to have to change things in a text editor just so I can have a simple shortcut on the desktop. I’ve learned how to do it and I can do it in my dreams now, but that doesn’t mean I like doing it.
One thing I always talk about is how DE is much more important for new user than a distro. New users will only use GUI anyway so their choice of DE has to be the most comfortable.
Took me years personally to switch to Linux, trying stuff like Ubuntu or PopOS, and I couldn’t understand why it doesn’t “click” for me until I understood that I simply personally dislike Gnome (being an ex Windows user). Tried a KDE distro and it clicked immediately, never looked back. Now I don’t even use KDE but it helped me to get through initial frustration period.
For me it’s always been partly about ease of use, but the biggest thing is a superficial one. I just really enjoy a beautiful UI and slick UX. In these categories Windows is deep in the trash, but the bar for me is MacOS. An OS needs to make what I’m using it for easier and nicer, not have me spending time just making it work.
I haven’t dipped my toe into the distro test pool in a few years, but every time I do I find myself spending more time sorting out the OS than just using it, and we’ll, they just haven’t been pretty to look at.
I think that’s what it comes down to, distros can be decently developed but are often severely lacking in the design department.
I’d definitely love to know if any distros out there for that sort of vibe!
Linux really isn't ideal for anyone who isn't already a tech enthusiast on some level. I recently did a fresh install of Kubuntu and after about a week, it prompted me that there were updates, so I clicked the notification and ran the updates, after which my BIOS could no longer detect the UEFI partition. I had to use a live usb to chroot into the system and repair it, as well as update grub, in order to fix it.
It's fixable, but this is not something anyone who doesn't already know what they're doing can fix. I've had auto updates in the past put me on boot-loops thanks to nvidia drivers, etc.
This kind of thing needs to almost never happen for linux to be friendly for those who just want their computer to work without any technical understanding. This, honestly though, can't happen because of the nature of distros, you can't ever make guarantees that everything will work because every distro has slightly different packages.
Wine is getting better, but compatibility is still an issue, especially for people who rely really heavily on microsoft office or adobe products.
It’s actually ideal for people who are actually not tech enthusiasts at all and do not need specific software for their job (Photoshop, audio stuff, actually NOT Ms office)
Everybody I 've seen making this argument is actually a tech enthusiast themselves and just as out of touch with the average user as a Linux “guru” and massively overestimates the non tech enthusiast user.
They are far more likely to fuck up their Windows PC (even with UAC because they don’t understand what it is) than successfullyinstall a new program on their own.
I 've borged my Nvidia drivers a few times, never via the distro auto updating. Custom kernels, trying to get newer cuda versions or something. Still better to fix than AMD drivers on windows and the whole DDU dance.
I'd say it can be, if they're running something incredibly stable that you can guarantee won't break on them... Which involves an amount of research and effort that most people simply won't put in as long as what they are familiar with continues to work. Windows might have it's fair share of issues, but at least a lot of people are already familiar with it, same w/ Mac os.
Nope. Install a distro like Ubuntu and it will not break with auto updates. Nvidia drivers included.
Much less maintenance than when they used windows.
You also overestimate the non tech enthusiast ability to use or fix issues with windows. They usually download the first program that promises to fix their issue, or increase their RAM.
I mean... that's simply incorrect. If you read my original post, I talked about that, exactly. Twice in the last month I've had running updates via the "updates available" notification in Kubuntu break the system, and require chrooting into the system via a live usb to fix it. That's without any changes or messing around with the system, on a very recent install.
When I used normal Ubuntu, there were rampant gnome shell crashes. Hardware compatibility is far from perfect, as well - case in point I've done clean installs of Linux Mint on computers for others in the past, only to find out that there simply aren't working wifi drivers for the device.
Linux CAN be less maintenance, but it's ultimately more work to actually make the jump and completely relearn how to use a computer. I'm fully aware of the capabilities on people who aren't enthusiasts, I do tech support for my whole family all the time. My stepfather's solution to the wifi being slow was to make more networks on the same router, it was hosting like 12 wifi networks at once. However, windows is already familiar to them. They could technically learn to use linux, but they have zero interest because if windows has an issue they'll just call me and I'll fix it (and that's usually not needed because it rarely breaks on them).
Well our experiences differ then. I never had any issues on vanilla Ubuntu systems. After all if there was I 'd have to be on the phone to fix it while also reminding the fam that any non specified click us a left click.
To be fair I rarely had issues with Windows myself, at least post xp. But windows do fail, especially on updates and in quite bizarre ways. I ve had to solve quite a few over the years.
To be honest, one part is what everyone mentioned here. Not being preinstalled and all that.
The other part is that unfortunately at least according to my own expirence as a Linux noob a few years ago some Linux communities can be very toxic. If you’re asking questions of how to do X and someone comes along and is all “why do you even want to do X if you could also do Y? Which is something entirely different but also does something vaguely similar”
That’s one if the things.
And then other curiosities. I cannot for example for the life of me get my main monitor to work under Linux with any new Kernel version. My Laptop just refuses to output to it or the second monitor attached via Display port daisychaining. On the older version it works, on the newer it’s broken. I have tried troubleshooting this problem for over half a year and it’s still broken. And that’s out of the Box on Ubuntu LTS…
So i don’t really understand this question. There are major roadblocks. With Wayland which is default for Ubuntu now those roadblock jist became bigger. Screensharing in multiple Apps including slack is outright broken unless you use the shitty webapp. The main player Office 365 largely doesn’t work at all on Linux. All these things that should work for a Desktop operating System don’t work out of the Box as they should.
That’s why people aren’t using it and companies aren’t preinstalling it.
Life long windows user currently dual booting and trying to fully switch.
I’ve gotten used to the terminal and I’m no stranger to editing config files but I still find myself saying ‘This could literally be a toggle or drop down menu’
I can mostly put up with it but I got friends who REALLY hate digging into files for basic stuff like global dark mode, If it’s not in a GUI it’s as good as none existent to some.
Yeah honestly same, I hate having to sudo into random system files to change something basic or having to open a terminal and remember the specific magic words to do what I need
so whenever I have the option I use GUI over CLI every time
This is heavily influenced by choice of DE. Some of them really do have all their options well laid out in the system settings, but others rely entirely on config files. I have little experience with GNOME, but with KDE I was able to customize my experience very heavily using only the system settings by just playing around in the GUI. Meanwhile, on another machine running Hyprland, I have had to read a lot of documentation in order to customize it, but the available options are relatively more powerful than the KDE setup.
Neither of these methods are more right than the other, but one is absolutely more new-user friendly, assuming they do not want to simply accept the defaults.
It’s the first step of installation, making a bootable usb/CD. Most non-technical people can’t be arsed to create a bootable drive, then go into the bios boot settings to run it. I haven’t used Windows in a long time so I don’t know how it’s installed these days, but the fact that it comes installed out-of-the-box when people buy a computer lets them skip the first and biggest step to running linux, which is getting it installed in the first place.
Distros have come a long way that a Windows user trying Linux Mint can hit the ground running. It’s no longer about the learning curve for USING linux, it’s INSTALLING linux that’s the problem.
Exactly. I’d argue that some supposedly mainstream distros are hard to install even for the competent. Last time I checked, Debian’s funnel for newbies consisted of a 90s-era website with “instructions” in the form of a rambling block of jargon-filled text with mentions of “CD-Roms” and a vague discussion of third-party apps for burning ISOs. I mean, on Linux flashing a USB stick is matter of a single dd command with some obscure switches, but even that was nowhere to be found and I had to search forums for it. Incredible! Hard to imagine how forbidding it must all seem to the average Windows user! No Debian for them!
IIRC Ubuntu’s process was much easier but still not as easy-peasy as it could have been.
The only hope for desktop Linux is a crystal-clear, bulletproof, 1-2-3-style onboarding funnel that takes the user from “this is the distro’s website” to “I have a bootable USB”. From that point on it’s plain sailing.
As somebody who likes using the terminal I too have mostly stopped using dd and use gnome disks instead. Getting the rightdd flags to get the best performance and progress indicators is a challenge to Google every time.
Install Balena Etcher. This is the website. Now install it.
Open Balena Etcher. Follow instructions on screen. Make sure you select the corrent iso file and the correct device (your USB of choice). Wait for the magic to happen… you have a bootable USB
Did not know Balena Etcher. Looks good - 1, 2, 3, professional-looking site.
But IMO even this is too involved. After all, by comparison, installing Windows is “Step 1. It’s done!”
Let’s say I know nothing about, say, Ubuntu, except that a techie friend told me to “have a go, it’s easy!” Well, personally I am going to want Ubuntu to do everything. I should not need to download stuff from random third-party sites that my friend never mentioned.
Basically, IMO there needs to be a FOSS clone of this Balena Etcher tool, which all the distros can rebrand and reskin as necessary. Then step 1 of “Install” is a native experience, just it is on the corporate OSes.
Maybe one of the slicker distros already does it, perhaps Pop_OS. If so, they deserve all the new users.
Indeed. I just checked and IMO Fedora is doing it exactly right: a big button “Get started” with the Media Writer as step 1. Now this is Linux for dummies! Meanwhile on the supposed dummy distro Ubuntu.com, you get “Follow this tutorial” and a stodgy bunch of howtos. And Debian all but screams “go away if you’re not a nerd” 😭
A long time ago, Ubuntu actually had a interesting way to install Ubuntu on your PC through Windows. It was called “Wubi” if I remember right.
It was definitely… Odd in how it worked. I believe it created a Windows virtual disk image, stored that image on your Windows filesystem, and then added an entry into the Windows Boot Loader to somehow boot into that. On first boot, it was like Windows where it asked you to create an account and then boom - all done.
And if you no longer wanted Ubuntu, you could just literally uninstall it from the Windows “Add or Remove Programs” menu and it’d remove the boot loader entry, and delete the virtual disk image.
Super super new user friendly. Unfortunately I think the reason why it was discontinued was there was an I/O performance cost from running it in a virtual image - and of course just as it sounds, it was a hacky way to do things. And of course, you couldn’t get rid of Windows because Ubuntu was living inside it.
Reminds me of how nowadays I believe Asahi Linux for M1 PCs is installed from within macOS - you don’t need to create a boot USB and load it at startup.
Ha! Amazing, had no idea. Maybe that explains Ubuntu’s early success. But yeah, in the grand strategy, better not to settle for being a Windows .exe app
Yeah, it took me way too long to get Debian running on my pc, because for some reason the website assumed that everyone would have a Linux to install Debain with. I haven’t had that, and that one tool they had didn’t work.
This is exactly what I never get. Do they not know that when you buy a new computer it tends to have Windows and only Windows on it?! I can’t help concluding that the people who run Debian must be bearded nerds who live in PC-filled basements and assume that all their users are the same.
@JubilantJaguar@Flemmbrav
For me, as long as the distro comes with with GUI of some sort, I am ok. The main issues with Linux installs, for me, is usually my wifi driver, but where there is a will, there is a way.
Linux should be teach at school instead of windows. Most people assume Linux is harder only because they are not used to it. Once you get accustomed you realize that it’s even easier, for example in popular distros with package manager opening a terminal and write a 3 words command followed by the name of software, as hard as it may sound, it’s much easier and fast than using google to download shady .exe files that needs to be installed manually.
Also people really needs to stop being lazy. You don’t jump into a car and drive it if you don’t know how to do it. If you are not down to spend 2 hours of your life learning how to use a machine you use daily you really should change mindset.
There is a perception of Linux as this hacker, terminal-only OS with a million equal choices and no direction or guides. This is not a true view or at least this is hyperbolic/based on Linux from 15 years ago. It is a stigma that Linux has. Every distro these days has to market itself as “We’re the out-of-the-box distro” which is just silly. Out-of-the-box is meaningless. Even Windows users modify their OS in certain ways. However, it breaks the stigma.
Linux adoption just needs more time. Most of the big issues for adoption have been solved in the past few years, and Linux is ready and knowledge of Linux and removal of the stigma is growing.
But it could do. I bought a mainstream laptop from a European big-box retailer 17 years ago which came without Windows installed and nothing but a Knoppix CD. It all worked great out of the box. It would work greater still today.
The corporate monopoly in OS software is just as outrageous as the one in browser software. It’s time for Brussels to step in.
This is harder than it first appears. Microsoft actually subsidizes vendors for selling machines with Windows installed. So these cheap laptops would actually be a bit more expensive without the Windows installation.
The misconception that you need to “know linux” to use a computer with linux.
You need to “know linux” to administer linux servers, or contribute to kernel development. My wife is a retired pharmacist, and she uses exclusively a computer with Linux since around 2008. She knows that’s Linux, because I told her so. If I had told her it was a different version of Windows, she’d be using it anyway - she was using win95 at work before, so any current windows would have been a big change anyway (granted, nothing like gnome, that’s why I gave her kubuntu).
This misconception is fed by “experienced” Linux users who like to be seen as “hackers” just because they “know Linux”.
Nobody uses the OS. You use programs that run on the OS. My wife doesn’t “use Linux”. She uses Chrome, the file manager (whatever that is in the ancient LTS Kubuntu release I have there and update only when LTS is over), LibreOffice Writer and Calc, a pdf reader (not adobe’s, whatever was in the distro), the HP scanner app. The closest she gets to “Linux” is occasionally accepting the popup asking for updates.
Users shouldn’t need to care about which OS (or which distro, for that matters) they’re running their apps on. The OS (and distro) should be as unobtrusive and transparent as possible.
Distro hopping cult. It’s ok to try a few distros when adopting Linux, or even flirt with new ones after you’ve already settled with one. Even keep doing it forever, on a secondary machine or live usbs, if you’re curious.
Doing it forever, on a primary machine is stupid; NO FSCK DISTRO WILL BE PERFECT. Windows users whine and cry every time Microsoft shoves a new and worse Windows version up their SSDs, but they stick with Windows anyway.
Distro hoppers hop often because they give up at the first inconvenience. They never feel at home or make it their home, because they never actually use their computers for long enough with any distro. They are more focused on the OS than in using the computer. Nothing wrong with that, but they’ll forever be “linux explorers”, not actual “linux users”.
There will always be some other that has that small thing that doesn’t come default on this one. There will always be compromises. It’s like marriage. Commit, negotiate, adapt. Settle down ffs.
The OS/distro shouldn’t be important for the average user; the OS/distro shouldn’t get in the way between the user and the apps, which is what the user uses.
Of course there are distros with specific usage in mind (pen test, gaming, video production, etc), as they conveniently have all main utilities packaged and integrated. But for real average user apps, the OS shouldn’t matter to the end user, let alone look like the user should know what window manager or packaging system they’re using.
Then when they are faced with dozens of “experts” discussing about which distro has the edge over the other, and the gory technical details of why, and comparing number of distros hopped, well, it sounds like Linux is a goal by itself, when all they wanted was to watch YouTube and access their messages and social media.
When my wife started using a Linux computer I didn’t tell her which distro was there (she probably knows the name kubuntu because it shows during boot). I didn’t give her a lecture about Gnome vs KDE, rpm vs deb, or the thousands of customizations she could have now. “You log in here, here’s the app menu, here’s chrome, this is the file manager, here’s the printer app”. Done, linux user since 2008.
Linux will never be mainstream while we make it look like “using Linux”, or “this distro”, matters, and that is an objective in itself. Most users don’t care. They want to use their apps.
This. You dont have to be a linux guru if you want to use Ubuntu or Mint. I’m not generalising, but in many linux user groups, there is a lot gatekeeping taking place, even when a new user asks a genuine question and provides all the necessary information.
lemmy.ml
Newest