As a counterpoint:
Reasons to consider NOT switching to Linux
Reasons to consider NOT switching to Linux
[1] https://corn.codeberg.page/aesthetic.htmlMy home folder has files that have been with me since 2006 or so. This laptop is 7 years old and this is the third fresh OS install it has in its lifetime - With one exception, it's always been updated to the latest Ubuntu version as needed with the Ubuntu tooling.
What I have been doing to prevent data loss (that never happened) is to keep the interesting parts of my home folder on a separate filesystem and symlink them into my home folder. This allowed the previous fresh install to format the root partition and I didn't need to worry about my data being deleted.
You can't. Their official recommendation, in the Windows 11 Settings app, is to reinstall Windows 11. There's no way to migrate "backwards" on update channels, you can only go "more unstable".
Back in the late 90s when I first started experimenting with Linux, the parent's post definitely described my experience. I remember booting up into a text-mode login prompt and running 'startx' and having to do a lot of messing around with manual configuration files. One mistake with an init file could leave your machine un-bootable and you'd have to use a rescue shell to recover. Driver support was a mixed bag for sure.
In current year it's literally the exact opposite experience. I have more issues with installing Windows apps that will make driver changes or add stuff to the registry that causes weird unexpected issues than I have with Linux. Linux is quick and easy to install and tends to "just work" for me once it's up and running.
I'm sure choice of hardware still has something to do with mixed experiences. I did have one bad experience in recent memory with a work-issued laptop and the track-pad not working with Linux. I had to use a personal device while I was employed there since it was a known issue with that particular brand and the fix was an upcoming kernel update. But that seems to be the extreme rare exception for me. Most devices I've installed Linux on have worked perfectly right out of the install and have required me to do zero configuration to make it usable.
On my main desktop the image has been rolling forward since 2008 when I switched to 64 bit. Naturally the hardware has been replaced around it several times since then.
I've used Linux as my main OS for years now and I love it, but I've stopped trying to evangelize it. Just use whatever OS you want, I'm happy on Linux.
It should be a no-brainer that an operative system that is free, open, democratic, well documented and consisting of over 50,000 quality software packages---Debian, for example---is better than an OS which isn't any of those things.
Of course software is (also) about ideology. If you find yourself advocating putting more money in the pockets of the already super rich, or pretending that there isn't a digital part of human life where people have rights, well then obviously you have picked sides.
Content-less emotional manipulation - just the kind of thing that I hate to see on HN.
You answered none of the points in the article itself, dismissing the entire thing out of hand with an acronym describing a concept that you provided no evidence actually applied to any of the arguments.
> It should be a no-brainer that an operative system that is free, open, democratic, well documented and consisting of over 50,000 quality software packages---Debian, for example---is better than an OS which isn't any of those things.
No. I've been using Linux as my daily driver for over a decade (and have spent far more time using it than Windows), and gotten a few other people on it, so I can say that, for actually getting things done and software just working, Windows is far better than Linux. An operating system where you have to struggle to get things done is a bad operating system.
Linux isn't "democratic", either - Linus Torvalds controls kernel development, and the userspace components have wildly differing development practices.
Nor is it "well documented" - Linux-related documentation is generally terrible to read. Technically correct? Sure - but that's not "well documented", that's an encyclopedia.
Neither can you say that those "50,000" software packages are "quality" - the vast majority of open-source software that I've seen is buggy, under-documented, incomplete, and difficult to use. (I mean, so is the vast majority of proprietary software - but that software being "also bad" doesn't make OSS software "good")
> Of course software is (also) about ideology. [...] well then obviously you have picked sides.
Please leave your manipulative speech out of HN, and don't try to drag me (or anyone) into your idealistic flamewar.
Microsoft is a company that is predatory towards its users, and that's why I recommend Linux despite all of its problems. Pretending that it has no problems, or is technically superior to Windows, and then piling on inflammatory dialog, does nobody any good.
Who wants to learn something new when the people you need help from are going to treat you like a moron?
We both know its more involved than clicking a different icon.
I've spent a lot of time with average users of all kinds. They couldn't care less. To them it's a thing that has less value than a coffee cup.
I could, and would sit down and explain to them everything that is cool, cute about every layers of a computer, with simple language and pragmatic use, with history context, and bits of benefits for their lives. They just don't want to hear it.
Some will say it's geek stuff. Some will say "I'm too scared". Some will try and forget 13 seconds later.
The insane side of this is that these people will spend grands on a new machine that will tickle their sense of free improvement (which will not happen). Again every 3-5 years.. forced by ecosystemic pressure to push old stuff out.
ps: I agree that GP was a bit smug, but even then, the population is what it is.
pps: even at work, if I offer to explain something, or write a script, or a macro to help, most people will react negatively for various reasons (very often its petty emotions, like jealousy, or disdain).
There's no reason why anyone should need to know the details of how a computer works to use the computer. The history you're so eager to tell should just be trivia.
Paraphrasing the CEO of Sun Microsystems (IIRC): you don't need to know how to operate a nuclear power plant to get light when you flick the light switch.
Of course "in theory" good tools are solid and simple.. in reality bro how insane the world is. Every update, every fix, changes the poor ground of habits users tried to build. Just yesterday I had to help a neighbor because she couldn't grasp a word document embedding a invisible table as layout forbidding the caret to move right as she used too. I think you're very much misunderstanding the vastness of psychologies, of tooling variations, of hidden variables and parameters and the immense layering of software.
People are confused by the slightest change in computer interaction. How do you want to make them understand when to click, double click, right click, drag, press. What's an URL, what happens when they click save, why errors or not ? people don't even know what saving a file is. Really, go in any office you can pick 30% of users totally clueless about folders and files.
Every attempt at hiding information causes trouble, it taps into shallow understanding and rote memory. People become mere users and it sucks. History is interesting, details are interesting, your brain loves it, if it's tied to a tangible concept and use for the people. It's not about making VBA6 classes or a talk about Linus Torvalds acrobatics for the sake of geek pleasure. It's to situate what are the reasons (as in reasoning) for why things are the way they are. Even your keyboard has a long history.
I spent the better part of an hour this week helping a family friend over Zoom, trying to help her digitally sign a document. Her browser's PDF viewer couldn't render the form input boxes, so I had to help her download Adobe Acrobat Reader (yuck, I know, but, I'm not going to argue with her employer about alternatives). She's not dull by any stretch--she has a PhD. Just unfamiliar with the process. And when you see the process through fresh eyes, you get the sense that, oh, maybe this actually isn't intuitive at all if you've never done it before.
I don't know why so much of the Linux community lacks that feeling of empathy. Perhaps because their journey through Linux was a giant hazing ritual, and they feel like they've earned the right to haze the next generation? I have no idea.
Software for the masses seems to always be dumbed down, lose functionality, or otherwise become less useful over time as its targeted at the lowest common denominator. I'm good with there being an OS that's primarily for people who have the time and desire to understand their tools and want to get the most out of them.
This isn't some dig at casual users, it's about market segmentation. Not everything needs to be for everyone, and that's okay. With few exceptions, the average PC has plenty of choice in its operating systems.
And yes, Windows users have complained mightily about nearly every upgrade (remember the Windows 8 fiasco? Windows 10 was lesser, but people still found fault, now 11...) but still use it. Oh well.
Also, there was a lot of bitching about Ubuntu moving from Gnome 2 to Unity. It led to a DE fork and an entire distro picking up the cause. So Linux users bitch too. But with OSS you can change what you want and the companies can also tell you to piss off...