You're viewing a single thread.
I have a crazy idea.
What if y'all get together, and make a guide on an easy way to switch to idk Arch, since Valve is working with it.
You know, so that they don't have to spend a lot of money, and don't have to worry about losing all their data, and hopefully so they don't have to learn everything about Linux so they can enjoy using it right away.
Ha, I almost believed that was realistic rereading it.
Exactly. Us Linux users, as a collective, tend to shoot ourselves in the foot here because we can't decide on the "best" distro for beginners. If we all just said one thing, with confidence and without arguments, and without saying "it depends...", more would probably make the switch.
No major outlets that the average user would frequent are likely to sell laptops with any Linux distro pre installed. Many non-technical users wouldn't even reinstall Windows by themselves, let alone Linux.
Any of the usual starter distros would be a good choice because once they are in the ecosystem they can find their own path. When a non technical person asks how to get Linux, there is no worse answer than a barrage of information followed by more questions. Just pick one, say it confidently, and assist them to make it happen.
And which distro would you pick with confidence? (Legitimately asking, I don't know which one I'd pick)
I intentionally didn't include it in my post because I didn't want the wave of differing opinions to distract from my point.
Personally, on balance, I would suggest Mint (Cinammon) for a new user, especially if it's an Internet stranger. Of course, I expect many, many replies disagreeing or explaining why I'm wrong and should pick ... something else.
There are loads of distros that are, or claim to be, friendly to new users. As with everything, all have advantages and disadvantages. My kids use Bazzite on their laptops because I can support them and deal with anything unexpected. I wouldn't recommend it to a random person because the installation isn't as friendly as others, and it's not as prevalent, so there is less support via search engines. The forums are quite active, and the community is friendly, but many folk would rather look for an existing answer than ask anything new. Then of course there's Ubuntu (with Snap et al), Pop!_OS, Elementary, Deepin etc etc. We could probably discuss the merits and detractors of each forever, just like currently happens in so many threads on Lemmy, Reddit and others.
So, why would I suggest Mint? Simply because it's not a wrong answer. It's easy to get, easy to install, has a great and welcoming community, and serves as a great place to introduce users to the ecosystem. After using it for a while, they can make their own, more informed choice of their next distro. There are plenty of other not wrong distros to choose from, but Mint is the one I would suggest.
Yep, you did it-- Mint is the right answer!
I’m so anti-Ubuntu but I would probably put that out there and roll with it. You can move on to something better once you figure it out anyway.
People like choice, but people don't want to have to spend time choosing or learning.
That's why I mentioned Arch - because of the tie in with the Steam Deck. Nice and easy for gamers to make a connection to.
What becomes the difficult sell is that people, in general, don't understand computers. It's the bane of my existence. Any Linux distro requires a basic understanding of how computers work. The Windows PC and Apple products were successful because they required no learning and the user was relatively protect from messing anything up.
The Steam Deck was successful because it took that same approach. It just uses a variant of their Big Picture mode users are already used to.
Linux, by it's very nature, is not something that can be widely adopted by consumers. I think that's why Apple and Windows (hell, even Google with Android and Chrome OS) can get all the invasive technology to the user they want, and force users to adopt even more invasive things. Because people just won't learn anything else. And that's not something any of us can do anything about.
I get your point but still wouldn't recommend arch to new people cause it's arch. Maybe something simpler like Mint which is what most people recommend imo.
Distrowatch.com (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
Problem though is it does depend, if they want to game pop or brazzite may be best, if they just want an lts then an lts is best, if they want all the updates fast maybe Fedora or endeavor, but if they want a more windows-y experience instead of mac-y then maybe FedoraKDE instead of Gnome..
The type of user who needs to ask where to start with Linux probably doesn't know how the difference between LTS and non-LTS will affect them in their daily life, yet. By the time you've finished explaining it to them, they've already decided that maybe Windows isn't so bad after all. Hence, my original point.
I assumed you knew what the acronym stood for (and you clearly do) so I didn't type it out, but I think "Long-Term Stable" is fairly self explanatory at least to the level a newcomer would need.
I didn't say they wouldn't know what it meant, I said they would be unlikely to know how it will affect them in their daily usage.
Most Windows users are accustomed to installing and updating their own applications, and letting the OS deal with its own updates and patches. They probably don't think much about all the dependencies and what version they're on because the installers deal with it.
When deciding whether to use a Linux LTS they may think it sounds like a good idea, with no appreciation for what happens when a package gets out of date, and their package manager won't update it, and they don't know why. They go down the rabbit hole of adding PPAs etc, which solves it in the short term maybe. Then it only gets worse from there, because they didn't understand that using an LTS means you have chosen to accept some packages being out of date for a while, until the next LTS is released.
Maybe they're the kind of person that is happy with that, or maybe they're not. But if you try to explain to the average Windows user about package repositories, Flatpaks, Snaps, LTS, rolling releases etc, you can pretty much guarantee they'll never try it because it sounds too damn hard.
Which brings me back to my original point... Us Linux users argue amongst ourselves too much about this stuff to attract Windows users, no matter what Microsoft does with their data.
"If you want super up to date stuff, an LTS is not your best choice, I'd go for something like Fedora and just keep back ups or set up snapper using this easy guide on youtube." (For example.)
”Package managers are basically your app store, you'll probably have the official one for your distro and then a general one called flatpak, use these for downloading your 'apps.'" They can understand a few basic things, they're windows users not Amish.
It's actually pretty easy with the guided installer currently shipping with arch, and there are actually numerous guides on how to install Arch.
Choosing not to is perfectly reasonable, but it's not for lack of effort from the Linux community trying to make things easier and more accessible.
I use arch BTW
-Microsoft
There's a bunch of beginner friendly distros, it's just that when you want to make things work as well as they did on Windows then you hit a wall.
I'm using Mint (which is as beginner friendly as it gets)... Because my display signal dropped whenever there was load on the GPU on Bazzite (Fedora based) which is also supposed to be beginner friendly...
No easy way to disable the audio outputs I don't actually use. On Windows? Couple of clicks, all done through GUI.
Wifi antenna didn't work, had to install unofficial drivers from GitHub.
I've got a multi display setup and sometimes I want to switch where things are displayed. On Windows I downloaded Monitor profile switcher and it does everything for me, just had to save the setup to a profile and assign a keyboard shortcut (which isn't essential as there's a shortcut to switch it on the taskbar), it's all done inside the program. On Mint I had to create a script to choose what to display with what resolution and create a new keyboard shortcut in a separate program because the alternative was to have to open the file explorer to open the folder where the script it saved to execute it.
Playing games is easier than ever! Except that games that have both a Linux and Windows version fuck up when it comes to cloud saving on Steam because the save game folder isn't necessarily the same (and the Deck installs the Windows version by default so fuck compatibility between that Linux running machine and Linux PCs!) so you still have to force install the windows version even though there's a perfectly playable Linux version!
Don't want to use the terminal? "Everything can be done without it but using it makes things easier..." When people say that they mean that you can browse the web and write stuff on LibreOffice but as soon as you deviate from stuff that you can accomplish with a simple Android tablet you're fucked because you'll have issues you couldn't imagine. If you don't want to use the terminal at that point you need to write scripts outside the terminal and then execute them so technically you didn't do what you needed to do in the terminal but the end result is the same!
Arch would be a bad idea, as if a user finds installing Fedora too hard Arch ain't doing them any favors.
And there are guides. Youtube "how to install (linux distro)," if it's popular there's already 500 guides.
As for data loss this should come as no surprise: back it up. Preferably on an external hdd/ssd, or your choice of cloud service if you're one of those people. Erasing your entire hard drive and installing a new OS will perhaps unsurprisingly wipe all your data without a backup. Frankly you should already have backups, idk why people pretend data loss is impossible on windows but it has happened to me and I can't be the only one.
If these businesses wouldn't switch to a newer version of windows, what makes you think they'll switch to arch or any linux distro?
That's exactly what I said without saying it.
Absolutely not, even if we could all work together that would be a horrible idea. Linux is not a Windows replacement and the Linux community doesn't need to be overwhelmed with Windows users asking why a specific feature doesnt work exactly the same.
Then maybe "just use Linux" shouldn't be the top advice for literally every computer issue presented here.
I agree. If people are drawn to Linux because they like the idea of it and accept they have a learning curve, that's great! But, moving to Linux through hatred or frustration with Windows will likely lead to even more frustration when Linux doesn't work the way they expected.
It’s not just learning curve. It’s feature set, compatibility, and user experience.
Certain distros’ window managers may work just the way you like, or they might not and it may not be so simple to change it. The preferences menu on some of them is tiny.
That’s before getting into just how perfectly it will work on your hardware. I tried Mint 21 first on my machine, and even though my hardware is ancient, it didn’t support the wi-fi card at all. That stuff is kernel level. I even looked up version numbers and it was supposed to work.
(Mint 22 worked but that’s ridiculously late to finally start supporting this hardware. And, it could not run games as well as Steam Deck)
Agreed, unironically Linux should never be recommended to anyone who wants their computer to work the same. If someone says '"I want Windows without Microsoft" I usually respond with tough luck that doesn't exist.
If you want Arch just use EndeavourOS. Its got an easy installer and a slightly less break-neck update schedule and you get the Arch User Repository for all the cool stuff.