Hacker News Reader

Trivial to install both but a real hassle to actually use both.

Not really. You reboot your computer, and press a key to pick which one you want.

That, in itself, can be kind of annoying (interrupt all your downloads or whatever you are doing), and it doesn't get at the other issues -- having to run updates for both, having two incompatible filesystems where it's annoying to fetch a document from one and use it on the other, doubling the amount of setup and configuration you have to do, and so on. Every time I've set up a dual-boot system I've ended up just never using one of the options.

> That, in itself, can be kind of annoying

Of course, but is it more annoying than using Windows all the time? OP leads me to belive a growing number of windows users might think otherwise. It's also worth noting that rebooting is an order of magnitude faster than it was 10 years ago.

> having to run updates for both

Updates are a pain in Windows, but they are not in any serious GNU/Linux distro I have ever used. This is one of the main reasons that users are frustrated with Windows in the first place.

> having two incompatible filesystems where it's annoying to fetch a document from one and use it on the other

This is a real problem when you are using Windows, but not when you are using Linux. The idea here is to only use Windows when you need it anyway. It's an inconvenience, sure, but is it more of an inconvenience than using Windows all the time? That's up to the user. Personally, the answer is no.

> doubling the amount of setup and configuration you have to do

Not so much, if you seriously use GNU/Linux for everything you don't need Windows for. Besides, configuration isn't a big issue unless you are like me, and want everything exactly your way; although, GNU/Linux is the only way I can get that.

> Every time I've set up a dual-boot system I've ended up just never using one of the options.

That's you, and that's fine. The best setup for you is almost definitely not the best setup for most other people. That is the entire reason to use and promote free software: liberty.

Windows has made dual-booting difficult on purpose, because proprietary software begets proprietary software and control. Thankfully, there has been plenty of work in the other direction for those of us who want to control our computers, as opposed to the inverse.

> Of course, but is it more annoying than using Windows all the time?

In a word: yes.

I have at different points used Windows, Linux, and OS X as primary desktop operating systems, so I am not operating from a sense of total ignorance of what other systems are like.

My experience with Linux was that I needed to do far more configuration because lots of hardware wouldn't work right out of the box and needed a lot of tweaking and digging through Linux forums for someone with the same problem. I'm really not interested in doing that kind of thing on my personal computer anymore.

When is the last time you used a major Linux distro?

From my experience, installing and using Linux has been the most straightforward, especially compared to windows.

And that's the point: we all have different experiences, so I think it's a bad idea to tell someone they are going to have your bad experiences of they try something new, because better software ends up getting a bad rap.

You don't seem to have any qualms about sharing negative Windows experiences. Is the claim here that I should never share my opinion of software I have used?

Negative experiences with windows are shared, because windows is proprietary, and therefore consistent. This entire thread is about one of them.

I haven't had any negative experience with CUPS, and if I had, that wouldn't define my experience with GNU/Linux.

I don't have an issue with you sharing experiences. I do get frustrated when those experiences are used to define GNU/Linux to those who haven't experienced it at all.

There are too many people who hear that GNU/Linux is not for them, when it is really a fantastic alternative to windows. There's an attitude that free software will always fail people (which is not true), and I find that attitude not simply unfortunate, but malicious.

The way that things improve is for manufacturers to see demand; and that won't happen if people don't see free software as the viable alternative that it is.

I agree with most of what the sibling post said, but the incompatible filesystems isn't much of an issue anymore.

In my experience, NTFS on Linux works very well. Certainly well enough for any average user.

Oh, the last time I tried it it came with a bunch of disclaimers to never mount an NTFS filesystem as read/write on a hard drive whose contents you weren't OK with losing, but it's good to hear things have gotten better.

Everything that deals with filesystems or partitions has that kind of disclaimer.

There fact is that you should always backup data you care about.

It's the same as saying they aren't responsible for your computer suddenly catching fire. Is that likely to happen? No.

Not that kind of disclaimer but a serious one that corruption was very likely

Now explain to a not-super-technical user how to configure GRUB to boot Windows by default, or how to remove GRUB when they give up on Linux.

A not-super-technical user can learn to do these things.

Is the liberty a free OS provides worth the effort to that user? That's entirely up to them.

It's easy to disregard change as too difficult to approach, especially when coming from such a controling and abusive environment (Windows/OS X). In reality, GNU/Linux is so much easier to use than Windows; most people have simply learned the latter first.

> In reality, GNU/Linux is so much easier to use than Windows; most people have simply learned the latter first.

That just isn't true. But don't take it from me; here's esr: http://web.archive.org/web/20180109063613/www.catb.org/esr/w...

Just because one piece of software was unnecessarily difficult for someone does not mean the entire ecosystem is broken.

The problem we have is that a similar problem in Windows is instantly forgiven, because there is nothing you can do about it; whereas in Linux people expect a higher standard (which is often met) because that arbitrary limitation no longer exists.

Sure windows has gotten a lot better since XP, but it has a long way to go to catch up to circa 2006 Ubuntu.

The article says that the point isn't about CUPS in particular, but generally poor UX in Linux GUIs, and how Windows and Mac in this regard wipe the floor with Linux software in this respect, and I think it's completely right. There just isn't really a culture of providing a consistent UI experience or making the UI a first-class citizen in Linux-land.

Trvial once you choose your distro :)

funny thing is when you install various distros you have a look at what's installed and you go "geeze it's installed a bunch of crap apps"

I used to run dual boot, but then got annoyed with that, then used windows primarily and VM'd linux, and now I use the linux subsystem in windows and occassionally fire up the VM.

I don't understand your point. If you're talking about my setup it doesn't really matter (I only use Windows for gaming and at work). If it's about maintaining friends and family computers with dual boot then good luck with that. For the rest and vast majority of people, that panics when a desktop icon moves, dual boot will fry their brains.

The people whose brains are not fried by dual booting should be dual booting and moving the platform steadily forward to reduce the excuses for the people whose brains are fried by dual booting.

So basically you want me to setup dual boot, teach, offer free support for the rest of their lives, for every person that I know? Because that's the only group who could do what we are talking about.

Or maybe you want me to convince them they should pay someone else to do that because Stallman was right.

I'm sure some people are lucky enough to have friends and family who would accept your values instantly, learn the setup easily and be glad to pay someone else to do it. I can only speak from my own experiences and they don't reflect that (and as much as I might make a comment here and there I won't ever again try to push "my values" down someone's else throat).

Did you even read my comment?

I did and that reply is based on me not believing a few "coders" will make year of the Linux desktop ever happen. So if you need Linux: it won't be viable alone in the near future (I'm talking about Linux offering everything Windows users need, like commercial software and AAA games so they don't need anything else) for the non tech savvy person and dual boot is also not an option in most cases unless there's some technical person "sponsoring" the whole deal. Either paid or not.

> So basically you want me to setup dual boot, teach, offer free support for the rest of their lives, for every person that I know?

Do you handle all of their Windows-related technical issues?

Are they incapable of learning to do it themselves?

Really?

Are you absolutely sure?

It's all-too-common for people to become dependent on technically-minded friends/family like us, but the fact is that it really isn't difficult for them to do it themselves.

The main barriers they face are:

1. I haven't done this before.

2. I don't immediately see the benefit.

What it comes down to is self-reliance. We can teach people to rely on themselves instead of rely on us.

As the saying goes:

> Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for the night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

... something like that, anyway.

People don't want to feel dumb (or don't want to learn too much Computers so they aren't Nerds) so they find excuses and don't want to use anything "complicated". And good people don't want to abuse your time. That's my real life experience, maybe on the internet it's not the same.

For thinkers, problems are an opportunity to learn. Others, they don't see it that way, they want things to just work without making them think. If anyone you're trying to "teach" and "show them the way" ever loses money or have any kind of non trivial issue because "your linug broke my microsoft access" you'll be forever the guy that broke his computer. And he'll hate Linux forever.

"Yes nana, you just have to install linux-headers first"

Netflix works fine on Linux. You can even run it on a Raspberry Pi.

Netflix does not allow 1080p streaming to a browser other than Safari/Edge/IE. I did try this firefox plugin[0], and it works sometimes, but it is a bit flaky.

[0] https://github.com/vladikoff/netflix-1080p-firefox#with-exte...

Trivial for someone who could use linux. 99.9% of computer users don't even know dual booting is possible.

Also my laptop literally cannot have linux installed on it thanks to UEFI.

You have to disable both "fast startup" and "secure boot" in order to install linux.

(I installed Ubuntu 17.10 alongside Win10 few weeks ago on my UEFI laptop.)

I gave up on dual booting on a regular basis when Windows 10, once again, turned fast startup back on with a forced update. Now I use linux for everything at home.

Windows 10 is basically malware at this point.

I agree about the malware, I often make this analogy. I was in an exam today and people went to turn on their computers to write the test, we have two hours, and Windows decides to do an update. No asking, no options. These aren't power users; these people struggle with basic computing and are trying to get through school. So the administration worked with them so they could actually write the test but come on. You don't have control of your machine with Windows and I find that inappropriate.

> Also my laptop literally cannot have linux installed on it thanks to UEFI.

Does it have "secure boot" that can't be disabled/other keys added?

Never once has this been true when I've pressed someone on it. It's FUD that's been repeated for years and oft reinvigorated by people that can't be bothered to Google or change a couple UEFI settings.

It's not even true in many (most?) cases that Secure Boot must be disabled.

If you're going to to claim it's trivial, maybe you shouldn't mention Arch in the same sentence. :p You don't want someone's first impression of Linux to be that.

Typing this from a laptop that has an Arch partition. I use it all the time for dev stuff. It sure as fuck wasn't trivial to set up.

I've done it. It is indeed trivial to install both.

But nobody cares how easy it is to install both. Using both is a huge pain.

rEFInd is a good option if you don't like things changing under your feet

A super-simple alternative is WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux), which let's you run Ubuntu in Windows 10 - I'm sure it won't work for some use cases (e.g running the docker daemon), but it's really rather good!

Bash is so much more powerful than the Windows shell, and try as I might I just don't like Powershell, so WSL gives me a great shell while running in Windows - no need for rebooting or VMs!

The point was about not being spied on, so not using Windows in the first place. They think dual boot could be used to minimize Windows usage, when absolutely required.

Many computers these days have an SSD and an HDD. Is it trivial to dual boot in that case? Do you partition both? One? Which one? After partitioning, which partition do you install your OS on?

Yes, it's pretty trivial. Ubuntu handles everything with the installation, then GRUB provides a boot menu that lets you choose which OS to use. More granular control is available to those who care, but it's still easy for those who don't care.

It's trivial.

You have your disks listed, each with its free/used space. You click the one you want to install to, and drag a slider to decide how much space to use.

That's how easy it was to install Ubuntu over a decade ago.

Disagree. YMMV, but the last time I tried to install both I had a nightmarish time. Fedora worked, but both Ubuntu and Mint gave me massive headaches.

Even when I got one installed I had problems with getting flat mouse speeds, not being able to adjust mouse scroll wheel speeds, even the frickin clock was even messed up. ( had to dig around for the issue then figure out the two OSes where saving the time in different ways every time each shut down)

I've got pages of notes for fixes to various issues I encountered trying to get dual booting working smoothly.

There's no way I'd recommend this to anyone who wants a computer that actually works without a hassle.