Yeah for years my experience is that Linux "just works" in the plug-and-play sense but on windows I'll have to download and install something from the web that could be on trustworthy looking site or not.
> System resources ... the requirements are much higher than they need to be
They don't mention the requirements directly because people would laugh them out of the room.
For hardware (aside from the TPM):
1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with 2 or more cores on a compatible 64-bit processor, 4 gigabytes (GB), 64 GB or larger storage device.
That is "higher than they need to be"? I don't think so. That's the absolute _floor_ and I'm shocked it isn't higher. Windows raising requirements forces hardware vendors to ship something better and for many people who buy the entry-level computer that's a boon.
> Is it finally the year of the Linux desktop?
No, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. I can't take someone seriously if they legitimately think installing Linux Mint is a viable alternative for normal people. If you are reading this you are not normal and neither are any people for which you support a linux install (parents/friends).
At work we have some old computers which entire existence is running a legacy program from back when software didn't have gigs to spare
Those computers efectively have fixed requirements measured in a few megabytes + Whatever Windows needs
This eventually will mean that either those apps get rewriten for no good reason and moved to other platforms, or they get stuck on 'unsupported OS, AirGapped from as much as possible' limbo
Effectively nothing about them changed, they didn't need anything new, the API's didn't change, Microsoft just decided to do the thing
I don’t understand why Microsoft is planning to die on the TPM 2.0 hill. If they actually go through with trying to charge customers $30 for extended support it will be a PR blunder and many won’t pay leaving systems vulnerable anyway. It’s not like they need more revenue.
You do understand how publicly traded companies work, right? The numbers must go up at all cost.
As for what their end game with TPM is we can only speculate - but they have been trying to push "trusted" computing for a long time now, with themselves in control of the master keys of course.
Like it or not, Linux is still not really user friendly compared to a windows computer. Users still have to do command line stuff, and the software you are used to is not available. The equivalents are not as shiny as the windows versions. Macs might be too expensive for some people who are still running on old hardware.
In my experience with Linux desktop, this could be "have the touchpad work the same as it did on Windows", "plug in an extra monitor and have it behave somewhat normally", or "play this game". But yeah, I guess that as long as we only expect "average users" to only use a web browser to look at Youtube, it's fine.
> have the touchpad work the same as it did on Windows", "plug in an extra monitor and have it behave somewhat normally", or "play this game".
I have no idea how touchpads behave on Windows, but in, say, Gnome or KDE, you can adjust it through the GUI. Extra monitors work fine on Gnome. Steam works fine in general, across distros.
GNOME and KDE both have the same touchpad gestures as Windows 10/11, and the monitor extension logic is basically identical too (GNOME even has a Win+P accelerator). Game variety hasn't really been an issue since the Steam Deck came out, with apologies to League of Legends addicts that probably ought to move on with their lives anyways.
Like, I understand that my MRI operator can't just install Linux on their PC. But the majority of people are usually not dependent on Windows-exclusive software, especially in the smartphone era.
Everytime I tried touchpad on windows laptops I disered it worked as well as in Linux.
I know things have improved a bit after 10, but I used to say that it is easy to see who is using windows because they always brought their mice with their laptops.
Not Ubuntu, but we need a Linux that's pretty, standardized, simple, fail-safe, developed as an immutable whole, consistent, and integrated as macOS and long-term compatible similar to Windows without the M+MAANG corporate bullshit of either, perhaps through a non-profit, employee-owned co-op social venture.
Perhaps a far more polished and documented version of Qubes with various btrfs trees selectively presented cleanly to appropriate VM containers. Focus on the user UX meets the dev/ops UX but without gimmicks, not-invented-here, or fragility. All of the various desktop-laptop things need to work without surprises and be easily configurable with a UI. For fleet management, a desktop OS really needs simple, programmatic/declarative/imperative MDM- and/or chef-like configuration agent or hooks.
Linux is significantly more user-friendly than Windows, the problem is it's unfamiliar. Windows is cryptic, roundabout, and very much the black sheep of modern operating systems. Nothing makes sense, there's a dozen settings panels, everything is everywhere, and the OS just breaks seemingly randomly if you leave it alone for long enough.
But we, consumers, have gotten so accustomed to the jank of Windows that we perceive it as intuitiveness. But is it really so? Just consider: what would Grandma have an easier time using? Elementary OS, or Windows 11? To me, the answer seems obvious. But we don't optimize for Grandma.
You absolutely don't have to. There's no reason for normal users to ever touch the command line, every essential task (installing stuff, updating) can be done through the GUI on most distros. Certainly the main ones like Ubuntu, Fedora and openSuse.
> the software you are used to is not available
This is the main issue. The average user has a meltdown if a single button moves. I still remember the Office ribbon fiasco, Windows 8 fiasco, etc...
1. Windows comes pre-installed. That means >99% of users (and I mean this literally) will not even consider running anything else (probably they don't even realise there's such a thing as not-Windows on a PC).
2. Enterprise software runs on Windows, that creates enough lock-in for Windows to always be a majority.
I'm back to Windows for a new $job. It's truly awful in so many ways, Linux is a joy by comparison for daily driving, with Mac a close-ish second.
With one difference: I'm not scared of software upgrades. The number of times my laptop was semi-bricked by an update, usually graphics driver, which required frantic googling for random commands, GRUB scripts with enormous disclaimers about how mistyping something will brick the laptop for good, discussions about Nouveau and how it's lal Nvidia's fault really... That's bad, always was, never got better for me, and I really don't miss it.
I use Debian stable. I'm utterly unafraid Debian's security patches, in fact I just accept them on my home server boxes without inspection. The same can not be said for Windows - I'm seen Windows security upgrades render boxes unbootable.
Moving between between versions is a different matter. Yes, Windows does it better, but not reliably enough for me to trust it. So for both Debian and Windows it's a case of replace the drive, and do a fresh install. In Debian's case, zstd < /dev/sda >/mnt/usb/sda-backup.zstd also works, if you have time to kill. Copying everything to a squashfs image also works well.
If your using Ubunt then your experience will be different. People who choosing Ubuntu over Debian is as perplexing to me as people voluntarily using Windows.
I often notice that Linux (and maybe some BSDs) can accommodate two extremes on the tech competence spectrum especially well: the least opinionated users may treat their computer as a black box and just enjoy web browsing / chatting / media with some help, while the most savvy can extract value from tailored and private setups (like stability of Debian or power of Nix).
At the same time, Linux on the desktop fails often for everyone in between: the learning curve is still higher (especially for people coming from Windows), and some very specialized professional proprietary software can be missing.
Luckily, as mentioned in the article, Microsoft tries to make the balance more equal.
Writing this as a person who has used Linux for the last 15 years with a 2-year break for macOS and back.
> the learning curve is still higher (especially for people coming from Windows)
I don't think the learning curve is higher at all. It's roughly the same as with Windows. But if you're coming from Windows, the fact that you have to mount a learning curve for the new OS can be a real friction point. When most people learned Windows, they did so over time, without pressure. If you're switching operating systems, you likely want to become competent in it very quickly. That can make it seem like the learning curve is higher when, in fact, it's just that you're trying to run up that hill faster.
I agree with you per se that the learning curve in many ways is a function from your past experience, but there's no contradiction with what I previously stated in the context of this article - since émigré from Windows will obviously have some experience with Windows, they have this learning bias already, and potentially a different mindset/expectations (the most famous - why can't I just download an .exe?!)
Some [1] Linux distros were even trying to emulate this experience (which is a dead end obviously)
You'd have to know what an operating system is, that you can install a different one than Windows, and still be able to run all of your software on the new one or acceptable substitutes.
That said, Steam OS for desktop (if ever) would be a serious contender, since a big chunk of high-end PCs are only used for gaming and internet browsing.
That is the funny thing - this regularly happens when a new OS comes out. People have been observing for decades now how Microsoft keeps the hardware industry afloat.
And even now, even though there is a "standard" and schemas for, MS's apps mostly ignore them, or use undocumented extensions (as far as I'm aware), so it the whole thing was truly straight from MS's embrace/extend/extinguish playbook.
But also new people grow up with their school-provided Windows/Apple/ChromeOS laptops and only know mobile phones beyond that so the trend is probably not all that positive.
Ableton or Lightroom both have some level of support under Wine but it depends on the version you need. But both also have alternatives and IME killer-apps tend to become a lot less important once users have sufficient other motivations. Nothing is really irreplaceable.
I would love to replace Lightroom, but unfortunately the alternatives just aren't as good.
There are good alternatives to Ableton, but once you get to know a DAW it is hard to switch. And running a DAW with an ecosystem of 3rd party VST plugins and low level access to audio hardware on Wine sounds like a recipe for a bad time, but I confess I haven't tried it.
So, yes, these things are possible, but it is still easier to just use Windows.
Man, I'm not so sure about that. The M-series Macbooks are just crazy good for speed and battery life. The basic bottom-tier Macbook is $1000 and will do for a vast majority of people. A $330 Windows laptop is going to be a phenomenal heap of junk. People were running Ableton on 16GB M1 Macbooks a couple of years ago.
Yes, the bottom tier MacBook Air is about £1k, but only comes with a 256gb SSD. You can get a decent windows laptop for about that price with 1tb of storage and 32gb of memory. A similar spec Mac is close to £3k. CPU wise they are all fine for real-time audio, but the extra storage really matters.
Been on Linux for 13 years now, and recent Mint releases really are as close as we've gotten to a "set-and-forget" operating system that...just works. Switchable graphics, power profiles, night colors, a consistent and stable updater, sensible defaults and options...
Microsoft really stumbled upon gold when they designed Windows 7, and fumbled it because investors always need novelty for growth. Mint just picked up the ball and kept running.
ChromeOS flex. It will run on hardware that even Linux complains about. I've even installed it on a Chromebook that stopped getting updates. Though, you have to replace the firmware, which entails some risk of bricking, so you can do a UEFI boot.
Also you can upgrade windows 10 to windows 11 even on hardware that Microsoft says is unsupported. Google for the workarounds. You only need to download the win11 iso from Microsoft and make a bootable USB stick using Rufus. Don't download anything from anywhere else. I wouldn't trust it.
And I just got a Thinkpad E14 for CachyOS (arch based). It auto configured btrfs with snapper. Everything just worked fine so far (fingerprints, cameras, sleep, secure boot, sound, mics, etc)
Fedora is still the king as the main workhorse, no headaches, every 6 months there's a reasonable upgrade.
But I can't help myself going back to arch, it just feels snappier.
So if you have a boring hardware like this thinkpad I got, everything just works, go for Arch.
The main reason I went with Fedora on the XPS was some issues with hardware/wifi/bluetooth from time to time, usually an hour before an important meeting that made me chill, ask for a few minutes to rollback a btrfs snapshot, etc.
I strongly suggest considering a community-run distro instead of one mainly controlled by one corporation unless you desperately want to experience a Microsoft 2.0. IBM is not a charity, they will extract value from their investments.
You do need to read the docs, though. Arch doesn't come with a firewall installed, etc out of the box. It really is a distro that is what you make of it.
I can't imagine recommending anyone run a distro that is effectively 10 years old & not really changing. It's still X11 and (mostly) gtk3!
It was a good option in 2015. And for some people I get that never changing never ever doing anything different is a huge value add for them. But I can't recommend starting your Linux experience by rusting in place, by using entirely backwards looking systems. Trying to ignore the broader ecosystem is a bad first Linux start.
Debian KDE is my go-to recommendation these days. Gnome is also fine but much less familiar, and most users I've found tend to like having options where-as gnome seemingly went to war with settings & customization. Debian isn't the most supportive but it's solid & amazing. Trixie is gonna be great, can't wait for release!
Mint is an absolutely outstanding piece of software. Commitment to stability and ease of use, which is what most regular users want from their OS. It moves slowly, but that's the price you pay for consistency and attention to user friendlyness.
If you're technical try Fedora. It's a bit on the bleeding edge side, but it's a zero-bullshit OS that mostly just works. Debian is another great option, but packages are a bit behind.
> Debian is another great option, but packages are a bit behind.
I've got hardware for a new home server that's waiting to be set up, and I was planning to put Devuan on it. Anyone has any impressions of that?
> If you're not technical honestly just buy a mac.
I have two :) And a couple linux boxes but I mostly ssh into them.
I haven't used desktop linux in ages (about 2013, when I switched from linux desktops to mac desktops).
Once in a while I run into the newest Ubuntu desktop for various reasons (this time I needed a server in a VM and I thought why not, let's install the desktop) and I'm astonished at the corporate style spamminess.
I forgot the details already but i got a wizard style setup screen pushing extra services, then a pop up and an update screen both showed up, one wanting to upgrade me to the next LTS (i used 22.04 for reproducibility reasons) and one informing me there are package updates, in spite of the installer allegedly installing updates just 2 minutes before.
Spam interrupting my work is spam. Plus I installed 22.04 for a reason.
I’m not a Linux newbie asking for advice, I’m just asking what the hell is happening to desktop Linux. As in im reasonably current on headless Linux. It was more respectful of the users concentration last time I used it seriously.
> Microsoft has a long history of playing fast-and-loose with the truth. And that’s again the case with Windows 10 coming to its supposed “end of life” this fall.
I can’t take an article seriously, whatever merits it might have, if this is the opening gambit.
“End of life” is a fairly common term of art amongst software and hardware OEMs. Windows 10 is going to be end of life. No scare quotes needed.
Microsoft announced at its Ignite conference this week that Windows 10 will be the last version of Windows. Microsoft has no plans to let Windows 10 become stale. On the contrary, it plans to keep Windows evolving with regular improvements and updates.
This probably refers to the fact that Windows XP still has support contracts. Microsoft commonly calls their software EOL and then supports it for 5+ years. I don't think that's a bad thing, but they tend to use it more as a marketing term than a true hard line where security fixes stop going out.
Also, If I remember correctly, the originally announced end of life for Windows XP was extended because too many people were still running it when the date came. (I think they even extended it more than once)
The funniest thing about this is that any major security indicent with Windows 10 after EOL would obviously get fixed by Microsoft because it would be so existentially terrible for them to point to the fine print and ignore it. But you can't stop outrage journalism.
No. If a vendor says “we aren’t going to support this product after X date - don’t call, don’t write”, that’s EoL.
Doesn’t matter if they do one off fixes because they decide that’s the right thing to do - product is still EoL. You won’t get support if, say, Word crashes due to a core library bug. You can’t rely on them doing regular testing. EoL.
Doesn’t matter if the DoD comes to some ridiculously expensive bespoke support arrangement - still EoL. You could probably offer them enough money to provide a support contract for MSDOS 1.0, but that’s still EoL for everyone else and in general.
>Doesn’t matter if they do one off fixes because they decide that’s the right thing to do - product is still EoL. You won’t get support if, say, Word crashes due to a core library bug
You don't get that under regular contracts either. There are tons of bugs, including crashing ones going back decades.
EOL either means "no more fixes period" or means nothing.
> You don't get that under regular contracts either.
Absolutely false. Of course vendors sometimes mark things WONTFIX, but Microsoft regularly produces bugfixes for supported products based on issues identified in support cases... As does every other reputable software vendor.
> EOL either means "no more fixes period" or means nothing.
Well, I disagree. Can you call in and get support with a support contract? Can you get a support contract without a one-off negotiation? Does the vendor regularly produce bug fixes -- not just emergency security fixes to allay a PR disaster -- for the product? No to all three? EoL.
Most important of all, has the vendor signaled that they will not support the product after X date and therefore a customer without a bespoke contract cannot rely on said support? EoL.
It's ending, it's a good idea to work towards upgrading, but yeah there's no one magic date after which a wall collapses and viruses waiting outside your computer rush in.
The worse an outcome with an outdated product the more the vendor has to support it because it would harm them to let any version of their product become synonymous with security risk.
And this is such a minor point to refuse to take an article seriously, one might as well refuse the theory of relativity paper because Einstein had some mispelling.
If you own the computer, you can enroll your own keys and sign any operating system you want. The UEFI vendors don't necessarily make this easy to do, nor do they support it in a consistent way, but it's there. Of course, Microsoft has no incentive to make this any easier, since their keys come preloaded on every computer.
The primary function of Secure Boot is to protect against bootkits. In a way, you're right, because for most desktop/laptop computers, a bootkit is indeed a "non-Windows operating system" that shouldn't be allowed to run. It's hard to get clear numbers on how prevalent bootkits actually are, but they're not purely theoretical. They can also be chained into compromising the UEFI and peripheral device firmware. So there's a real security threat being addressed by Secure Boot. Whether it should be required or not is really about the question of where the responsibility boundary between Microsoft and the end user lies.
> If you own the computer, you can enroll your own keys and sign any operating system you want. The UEFI vendors don't necessarily make this easy to do, nor do they support it in a consistent way, but it's there
This is not unilaterally true and there is no reason they won't try to push more locked down computers now that the base technology is accepted.
> The primary function of Secure Boot is to protect against bootkits.
Which are pure FUD when it comes to regular users. Once your computer is owned to the point where a bootkit can install itself all the user data (what actually matters) is already long gone. Secure boot isn't going to help you one bit.
"They" will absolutely push more locked down computers, indeed this has become the norm in many areas of computing already, like smartphones, tablets, and video game consoles. For that same regular user, though, this is irrelevant: they're never going to install a different operating system.
A computer once compromised by a bootkit is also e-waste. It can never be trusted again. Now, I think an argument can be made that Secure Boot as implemented on most PCs isn't enough to truly protect against bootkits, but that just leads us to even more aggressive ways of locking people out of fully controlling their own computers.
Ultimately, Microsoft (and any PC O/S vendor that might supplant them in the future) will be expected by enterprises, judges, legislators, average home users, etc. to take responsibility for exploitation of "their" systems. Computers connected to the Internet 24/7 cannot rely on end-user discretion alone, and the effectiveness of such discretion varies widely anyway.
"Services open to the Internet" is more of a 2000s problem than a modern problem. Operating systems default to being a lot less trusting of local networks today, and nearly every place you'd connect to WiFi already has a router with a "drop all unsolicited packets" policy. MITM is the big risk here, and the best way to address it is by using secure protocols (HTTPS, SSH, etc.) everywhere.
Mandatory code signing for web sites would go a long way to addressing some of the most common types of exploits we see today, and that doesn't require a TPM. I'd love to see it, but it is going to require some infrastructure and enforcement to work, and it too could become user-hostile (e.g., you can't block ads, because that would change the code).
> "Services open to the Internet" is more of a 2000s problem than a modern problem.
Then why does Windows need a firewall that's on by default, if it has no open services?
> Mandatory code signing for web sites would go a long way to addressing some of the most common types of exploits we see today
All the spam I'm filtering today has their DKIM and domain whatever and and and ... in order. I'm sure it would be the same for $random_phishing_site. They do have legit looking SSL certs don't they?
> it too could become user-hostile (e.g., you can't block ads, because that would change the code)
Or even worse, you'd need to submit your site to a review from some authority, App Store style. Pay for the signature. Pay for the review process.
Can you spell barrier to entry and speech that's restricted via financial means?
Yes, the software firewall is one of the defense mechanisms of modern versions of Windows. I don't know what point you're driving at. "Regular users" don't care about any of these power-user arguments. The question is, do Secure Boot and other end-to-end trust mechanisms allow the software and hardware vendors to better ensure that people who don't know what they're doing are protected? This is the model that has been adopted or is being adopted in nearly every other consumer-facing Internet-connected device already.
The question of what's good for people who do know what they're doing is an important one but it is a bit beside the point. These security measures have a purpose and it's not just to take control away from the end user. There are some other paths that could be taken, of course, but many of them seem to be starting from the point of willful naivete about the reality of computer security today.
BitLocker is not useful? Have you tried configuring LUKS with TPM? I recently got in trouble cause I tried that, dracut rewrote my initrd but missed some options (somehow when dracut is missing a module it's just a warning?!) in the setupcrypt so the damn thing wouldn't boot. Compared to the super streamlined experience with BitLocker (where the largest hassle is that you have to type your recovery key) it's a joke.
And the alternative is ZFS encryption which apparently still has data loss race condition bugs and the person submitting patches to fix those admits they have no idea why that happens.
It's not Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt. Nobody serious is saying that TPMs are a bad idea. They are saying they are not required and they are fucking correct to say it, and especially when folks are already suffering under a cost of living hike like few we've seen, plus Trump's stupid tariffs, it's horseshit to effectively hold people's security hostage to them buying an entire new fucking computer.
You can disable the requirements for these features in Windows setup with Microsoft approved group policies. They are the definition of not required. My workbench PC is a shitty old XPS from 2014 and it runs 11 just fine.
Like, would people be more secure with TPMs? Absolutely, but I've been using computers in my home since fucking 2004 that did not have these features. Surely we can let it go a little longer without throwing folks to the digital wolves for the crime of not having a few hundred around for another new goddamn gadget?
> Nobody serious is saying that TPMs are a bad idea.
I am. They by definition mean you no longer have full authority over your computer which is unacceptable. Even their name is orwellian - they are all about NOT trusting the user.
> They are the definition of not required.
They will be once support is widespread enough. And they will be used against your interests.
If they offered to support higher security on win11 with a tpm chip that'd be one thing, but they're creating a situation where you either pay them for security updates on win10 forever or be forced to upgrade hardware that is otherwise perfectly functional.
AFAICT the author isn't saying "TPM bad" but rather "wasteful disposal of millions of functional computers for no valid reason is bad"
It doesn't have to be thrown out, just keep using Windows 10. Oh, but you still want security patches for your old hardware and insist that it must be free - got it.
I suspect if you were willing to cough up a few $B you could get companies to support any old hardware that you want, indefinitely.
They likely ran the numbers and decide that it would be sub economic due to the small number of takers. Offering support for a very high that actually covers the costs + ROI would be laughable and just create negative PR.
You seem to misunderstand. I'm not asking "does this program exist". The program does exist. But it is de-emphasized in favor of "lolz just buy a new computer".
We can't have it both ways. Either Windows gets serious about security and enforces hardware encryption or forever the industry will say "oh, Windows isn't secure you can't trust it."
Windows has supported hardware encryption for a very long time. I support various machines owned by my family that are hardware encrypted spanning across the last 15 years. All work on Windows 10 and are encrypted with Bitlocker (or that invisible Home edition "device encryption" version). They don't support Windows 11.
… and all those things that Windows 10 “supports“ can be much more easily bypassed without TPM and secure boot. Lots of things not to like about Win11 but force-dragging their manufacturers and customers into 2010s era security is long overdue.
> How does secure boot help against a browser vulnerability exploitation? Especially on Windows?
It will eventually do that by only allowing you to run microsoft-approved signed software. Of course no sane person should want that but it's what all this is building towards.
What? TPM and Secure Boot aren't new at all. Fine let's remove one machine from the set:
I support various machines owned by my family that are hardware encrypted spanning across the last 10 years. All work on Windows 10, use Secure Boot, and are encrypted with TPM and Bitlocker (or that invisible Home edition "device encryption" version). They don't support Windows 11.
Even the extreme outlier machine has TPM. This nonsense is not about security. What threats are actually affecting people's computers these days? What is this going to do against phishing and scammers? What new security features are present in Windows 11 and not 10 that are so critical to justify throwing out hundreds of millions of machines?
Being serious about security means replacing the ecosystem of downloading unsigned .exe installers. Unfortunately code signing and discouraging downloads of unpopular exe files has been very hostile to independent developers. The Windows Store is focused on shovelware and revenue share rather than getting a real package manager out there.
The dichotomy is with their backwards compatibility. They could gut the windows apis and replace them with more secure models, but that might upset legacy corporate customers so instead they let ordinary people get hacked or lose their family photos and spend money on repairs.
Even if we ignore the fact that Windows RT is long cancelled, has anyone ever seen either in the wild on any machine?
Ultimately my point is I don't think the following is true. What you describe basically exists, and no one wanted it. For Windows RT I remember it basically being, "wait a minute, this thing can't run my normal apps".
> but that might upset legacy corporate customers so instead they let ordinary people get hacked or lose their family photos and spend money on repairs
I doubt Microsoft could manage to market an umbrella in a rain storm, so I imagine that's why S mode is basically stillborn. These days people use a lot fewer native apps (and now it is possible to package many of them into the Store), and S mode can be converted to full. I imagine if it started in S mode by default most people would never notice
Microsoft's latest lie is primed to created the largest single E-waste event in human history, argues Timothy Allen, Principal Engineer at the Wharton School, in an article for Technical.ly. The article gives practical suggestions, and argues the migration from Windows 10 to Linux Mint is easier than Windows 10 to Windows 11.
> and argues the migration from Windows 10 to Linux Mint is easier than Windows 10 to Windows 11.
This message needs to stop. I use both heavily, because 1. I need to work and 2. I believe it's my duty to attempt to escape the prison MS/Apple/et al have built around us. But running Linux is fucking hard, unless all you need is available in a browser, and even then...
If someone is going in expecting an easy replacement, they're going to leave the second it's not. If they go in believing it's a fight for our collective souls, they might be willing to join the rebellion.
People are also struggling with Windows (any version). Especially installing programs (clicking through wizards, answering lots of questions they don't understand) and installing device drivers (how to even know what to do, to the get a device working? where to find drivers?) are often too much for non-technical users on Windows. Both of these are much easier (or unnecessary) on most Linux distros. No matter which OS they use, they will sometimes have to ask someone more knowledgable to solve some problems.
The situation is very hit or miss, I assume the downvoters don't have many problems because they're probably smart about the machines they try to put linux on.
Just this month, I put Linux Mint on an old dell laptop, and a custom built PC with a 1080 ti in it.
The laptop worked perfect, wifi worked out of the box, and it ran much smoother than it did with Windows 10.
The desktop was a pain because none of the 3 usb wifi devices I already had, worked out of the box. I started down the path of following some guides that got 2 of them "working" with the same steps, but they both behaved horribly. I gave up and ordered a device known to work with Linux for $50 because it just wasn't worth my time. It's connection speed is even faster than it runs on my windows machine, but there are frequent "blips" in the connection. Gah! Nothing is more demotivating than having trouble loading the web page trying to show you how to fix your networking issues.
The video card seems to work fine but none of the games I want to play via steam work nearly as smooth as I hoped, and they're old games, the newest one just turned 10 yo. I love what Steam is doing, and I'm sure I could get a lot of the games working pretty good with some more effort, but it's not the cakewalk it's often hyped up to be. I decided to just use it for old emulators, and stick to my Windows machine for other games.
On top of all that, it feels just about as "slow" as it did with Windows for basic operations. Again, I'm sure I could do some optimizing and get it blazing fast, but I don't have the time for that when I've already got things generally working fine on other machines.
> But running Linux is fucking hard, unless all you need is available in a browser, and even then...
For some it is, for others it isn‘t. It really heavily depends on what you want to do with it. I have migrated multiple family members to Ubuntu with KDE and they don‘t have any complaints at all. Many people fail to realize how basic the computing needs for many people are, especially individual consumers
Changing your habits is hard. But that's also true for Windows > Mac.
Linux (Mint) in itself isn't hard. You need to understand what's different. If you have no hardware issue, the biggest different lies in "how do I install [software]" ? But now most distros (incl. Linux Mint) are hidding the package managers (including flatpack which provides a lot of software) behind nice "App Store" like GUIs.
How do I know that ? After years on Linux & Mac, I had to work on Windows in my previous job. Guess what ? It was hard. Especially Windows 10 & 11. It's complex, it's a mess, nothing is coherent. I started my journey into computing with Windows 95. It used to be somehow simple, with coherent ergonomics. It's long gone. Any big Linx DE is more coherent than recent Windows nowadays.
I have decades of experience with both Windows and Linux (many machines, distros, package managers(or lack of), DEs, terminals), but only 2 years with Mac. Getting a hang of the Mac was hard, especially since I also had to still switch between all OSes regularly. New environments and habits are hard, yeah, but Linux is objectively much harsher than most, it's not because I'm used to some particular DE.
Yup, macOS is still a mixed bag for me. Both really clever egonomics most of the time but also incredibly frustrating when you want to do something Apple didnt thought about. And it's not going in the right direction tbh.
I think my personal macbook (Air M2) is my last. And it's a shame because hardware-wise it's just perfect.
Relase after release of macOS, I don't feel like i'm their target anymore. Like Windows, I can't even remember when was the last time I was excited about a new macOS feature.
The bigger issue is probably less "how do I install software" and more "how do I not install malware". I'm not saying that Linux is more prone to malware, but that the steps we teach people to avoid issues on Windows don't translate over.
The situation is roughly similar though: only install software from trusted sources. The only real difference is that Linux distros come with a built in trusted source of programs that likely covers almost all of your needs.
Running Linux is easy. Literally everything is easier from installation to installing drivers (they're all in the kernel except Nvidia, which you don't have to worry about if you're on Ubuntu as it installs it for you), installing software, updates, upgrades...
The only difficult part is all the shit advice on the internet and the idea that you *need* certain software.
> But running Linux is fucking hard, unless all you need is available in a browser, and even then...
Has this actually been a valid complaint for the past 15 years?
I'll concede that installing it (merely downloading, burning to a thumb drive, disabling secure boot, following the install wizard) already puts it beyond the scope of 99% of users, which will use the pre-installed OS no matter what.
But using it? Linux Mint is orders of magnitude more user friendly than Windows. It's fast, clear, there's no ads and no mandatory logins. Things work out of the box with no need to manually install drivers. There's an easy to use "app store". Most Windows programs even run with Wine/Proton.
What I have learned is that in the last 30 years of being told that I should switch to Linux on the desktop is that I should stop listening to these people’s ideological perspective and just get on with creating and doing shit. Because that’s far more important. I’ll take Excel and Adobe over any of the alternatives.
I am not even sure I’m happy with it on the server these days. FreeBSD is far less nasty.
I'm kind of there too, but I haven't entirely given up. 5 years ago, I wouldn't have installed Windows on any of my personal machines, but Windows 10 is on my primary PC right now.
I guess my point was that we're going to lose more potential users by over promising instead of just being honest.
It's built on an ideology.
It's pretty good but, when you struggle, we're here to help.
Things will be different, sometimes in very stupid ways, but there are multiple choices, with tradeoffs, YOU get to decided on.
The big corporations aren't really interested in you as a target demographic, but do you really want them to be?
All that sounds way more inspiring than "It'S tHe SaME thING, bUTT FReEEEEEdOm" which gets proven factually incorrect within the first 5 minutes of attempted productive use.
Let's be real for a second, we're in an era where people are less likely to buy a new computer. Part of it is due to the performance plateau of new hardware, part of it is people just don't use PCs as much. This is the same demographic of people that ran XP until they bought a new PC that just happened to run 7. Or 7 -> 10.
I think about my mom. She's not tech literate, but needs a PC to do business. She cannot seem to remember Ctrl C, Ctrl V. She doesn't know what a file explorer is or how to pair a Bluetooth device. There is no way in hell she would know how to update to 11, nor would she even comprehend any of the differences between the two. She's the type of person that would buy a new computer if her charger stopped working. She represents millions of people that own a computer.
We're going to see a lot of 10 stragglers not due to protest, but incompetence. For any of us that actually care about updating, it is incredibly simple to bypass any checks. For anyone that would attempt to run Linux, it would be easier to bypass the requirement checks. This whole thing is blown completely out of proportion because people are still trying to push the year of the Linux desktop.
It might convert some people, but stop pushing (imo) misleading narratives like planned obsolescence when we're living in an era of a Windows that is more secure than ever, has the largest catalog of runnable software, and probably the largest step in the history of the platform.
