Linux

If you're actually expecting people to transition without asking for help on a regular basis, you don't know people.

You just made yourself their IT guy for life.

No, it's better to be honest. The average user isn't ready for Linux, because Linux is not ready for the average user. I'd never try and get someone to use it if they're not already interested. I hate that it is this way, but it is. Linux is only really for people who already want to use it. Because if you're not interested in using it, you're not going to put forth the time investment to gain the benefits from it. No matter what angle I look at it from Linux is not for the average person.

Your second paragraph says it all. Find out if the user needs to dual boot? The answer is obviously "No" because no matter what they're using the computer for, Linux is unneeded for them, since they have Windows. There are tangible benefits to using Windows, since it runs their software, meanwhile, you failed to list any real benefits to using Linux for the average user. It's faster? No, not really, since they'll be learning how to use it, and even ignoring that, it's not so much faster that they'll perceive it anyway. It's more secure? Not really, Windows is the better choice for the average user in that respect, since it'll automatically force them to restart the machine every week to install security updates. Main choice of professionals? That's not entirely true, and even if it were, it's not relevant, the average user is not a professional. And for anyone who already owns a computer already running Windows, Windows was 'free' too.

The only time to have this discussion is if the user is having a PC built, and then the answer is also "No" to Linux, because they're going to buy Windows anyway, since it's better for gaming, and that's the primary reason for someone to build a PC, unless they're doing a specialized task like video editing, and if they are invested enough into the task to want a PC just for that, they have specialized software that almost always runs only on Windows, and even if it were able to run on either, it's not my place to alter their workflow.

The real elitist attitude is thinking people need to use Linux in the first place. For me and (maybe) you, it might get the job done, but for my family and friends. It's better that they use what they're comfortable with. The main point of a computer is to accomplish tasks, and giving them Linux is a hindrance to that.

Linux is great, but it's not for everyone, and it may never be.

No. Mint is fine for my dad who uses a browser and an email program and nothing else. I'm not gonna recommend it to people who do a lot more with their machines. I can tell them I use Linux and they can ask me anything if they are ever curious about making the switch, but that is it. If they don't make the conscious decision to use Linux, then they won't stick with it anyways.

I don't buy the whole "the more users a software has, the better it gets" rhetoric. Historically this has been the opposite of the case. There's an even higher users-to-contributors ratio amongst the general population. Not all users share the same respect for the philosophy behind FOSS.

If the driving force behind design decisions becomes "what keeps people happy so they'll keep using our software" and not "freedom," there's now a practical incentive to sell out and introduce more Intellectual Property shenanigans into the ecosystem. After all, it's a lot easier to hire devs and churn out new features and keep the software actively developed for the foreseeable future if there's money in it. And the only way there can be money in it is if there are proprietary licenses shitting up the place, and Shit As A Service suscription models as far as the eye can see.

Linux always has been, and should always continue to be, about freedom. If that freedom comes with user-friendliness, great! If not, then we have to pay the price: taking responsibility for the tools and tech we use and learning how to use them properly and contributing to them to maintain a community of likeminded people. Otherwise, we're not worthy of the freedom and the responsibilities it entails.

I get your point about elitism and gatekeeping. We're no better than Windows users or Mac users or any other OS' users. We just have a set of values unique to our community, and they have sets of values that differ. We also shouldn't be throwing users under the bus in the name of politics, but part of what makes Linux slightly more bearable is the way the driving philosophy of Free Software is evident throughout. Linux is better than it could be because it attracts the people who want to be here for the community's values, not the people who have to be coaxed and coerced into accepting the values to use the "best"/"easiest"/"friendliest" software.

This is gonna cause more harm than good. The reason people think it's techy is because it is. I would recommend linux to my grandma and someone who loves tech. The middleground runs into a lot of issues for doing anything beyond basic computer stuff.

This post gives me the vibe of someone desperately trying to get people to buy the cryptocurrency they're invested in. Particularly the part where only the good is mentioned and the bad is omitted.

Some linux people are pretty elitist though, and it's not helping the cause. but in the same way, i dont think pretending that it's the greatest thing since sliced tea is much better.

Stop being elitist.

Use linux mint.

Why linux mint?

It's like ubuntu but no snaps.

What's ubuntu?

It's like debian but not as stable. You'll get more recent apps in ubuntu, test them, and when they are tested companies use the apps in debian.

Ok, What are snaps?

You can install packages with snap, but it's proprietary.

Ok, that's bad?

Yes. Foss apps are great and better than proprietary garbage.

Ok, foss good, proprietary garbage.

Why debian and not fedora?

Because all apps are build for it.

So it's like aur?

No. Aur is made by users for users. Builds on debian are mostly official.

So the package manager is better on debian?

Yes, kind of.

I heard of distrobox. I could use the package manager on any distro.

Yes, but it's easier at the beginning to stick to one distro and package manager to get used to it.

Why not arch?

It's too unstable.

Ok, no arch distro. I heard manjaro is good.

No, it holds back packages for no reason.

Ok. What about fedora?

It doesn't have as many packages.

But it has the copr, aren't there a lot of apps?

Yes, but it's like aur, it's build by users. Debian builds are good, stable and widely used.

Ok. What about nix? I heared it's the new arch and there are even more packages.

Yes, but It's not for newbies.

What is an immutable system? I heared that's the next big thing.

It's like android an image based operating system where you can't brick your system by accident with rm -rf /

What's rm -rf /?

Just test it in a terminal, it's fun.

How can I play games?

You install steam.

Do I have to configure anything?

Hopefully not

Can I only use linux mint?

No you can use any distro, they are all linux. You can choose whatever you want. Just choose mint.

Why mint?

It has no snaps.

What do I use instead?

Flatpaks

If I use flatpaks, why does the package manager matter so much?

Because not all apps are available as flatpacks, especially command line tools. Snaps has cli but it's proprietary.

Can't I just use any distro and use a debian distrobox for those packages I need from debian?

Yes, use linux mint, it's easy to use.

Do I actually need all those packages? I only use word and steam.

No, probably not.

Why not using ubuntu and install flatpaks?

Because ubuntu sucks.

But isn't mint based on ubuntu?

Yes, but it has no snaps.

Can't I just use debian?

Yes, but it doesn't have the latest packages.

How do I install word?

You can't. You can use the online version.

That's a lot to understand. Can't I just windows? I only open steam anyway.

Yes, but it's proprietary.

Steam is also proprietary.

Yes, but you xan play games with it on linux.

But if steam is proprietary, and windows is proprietary, and I mainly use steam anyway, does it even matter?

What's a DE?

Linux mint uses cinnamon, it's cool!

I saw some KDE screemshots. It looks cool and everyone talks about it. There's a big release coming in a few weeks. how do I install it?

You usually don't mix DEs unless you know what you do.

I don't.

Then don't mix it.

But I want to use KDE. Which distro should I use? Kubuntu?

No, it uses snaps like ubuntu.

...

People who daily drive Linux are not the ones who spread the old idea that it's "too techy".

There’s 0 need for Linux to grow. It powers 80% of new web-apps, runs the big gaming systems, parts of azure and aws. It’s the go-to server os for most use-cases.

The Linux desktop needs to mature if it’s to grow. Non-tech users don’t care for “new and innovative ux paradigms”. They don’t wanna scan the internet to figure out why sound is missing after upgrading to pop_os 4. That or they need someone close by to fix it for free

All I want is to be able to post a question in a forum and get an answer besides "Until you read these 3 texts and 20 MAN entries I don't want you to even stain this forum's pages with your ignorant drivel'.

I've been trying to go linux for 20 years now and every fuckdamn time a problem I cannot solve or find an answer for online leads to the above and I'm done.

You guys may have cleaned up your community now but I don't have the energy or patience to try it again.

Full Disclosure: IT admin with 3 decades of experience including supporting linux servers. If I have a hard time with it, think about what your average 'raised on a smartphone' newbie is going to think.

If someone comes to me I'm more than happy to answer questions and help, but I won't bring it up. People don't like being told that their tool of choice is "bad" "not optimal" or anything like that. Even if it's only their choice because they grew up with it or don't want to learn anything new. And they still need to learn if it's more than browsing the web.

Also I really don't want to be the one they come running to once something doesn't work the way they expected - or not at all. I don't have the time nor the inclination to be tech support for my family and half of my friends.

I don't often suggest Linux to friends or family, because I don't want to be on the hook for tech support. I also don't want to be the blamed party when they inevitably give up, and be obligated to reinstall their old OS.

Linux is growing naturally. There's little reason to suggest it to someone who won't benefit from it.

EDIT: I want to clarify, I appreciate the spirit of your post. But I also want to call out, that it just isn't the best choice for most people.

Things are fine until one day they need to plug this random peripheral/accessory and it's not plug and play. Then they hate you forever

casually mentions how i run linux. other person. that's cool. continues with windows.

if they don't want to hear it, they don't want to hear it. but if they do, they know they can ask.

I don’t think anyone who isn’t already curious about Linux should install Linux. And I sure as hell am not going to try to convince anyone and be blamed for not being able to use adobe products.

Build an automatic Linux mint installer that can handle most typical configurations and migrate data and apps from windows (with wine)

Get some oldish windows exploits together.

Build a worm that replaced vulnerable windows systems with mint

???

Profit (3 free meals a day and TV for the rest of your life)

People can make their own choices. I have 6-7 Linux machines, and asked my brother to install it too. He hated the experience. He bought a Mac at the end, and he's very happy with it. Some people just don't want Linux. They don't care about its philosophy, or that it's free. They want an ecosystem, and a status symbol.

I’m a Linux user and fan for a lot of years now. Software engineer by profession.

It’s not ready for widespread adoption to the less tech-savvy masses.

It misses some functionality that is really hard to get right but is absolutely expected to get right. For example: graceful suspend and wakeups. It happens so often even to me that I close my Linux laptop for the day, next morning open it up to a bunch of warnings and error messages about Bluetooth adapters or whatever the device of the day that wants to malfunction is that prevents a sound ~S2~ S3 sleep.

I don’t get freaked out about it. But grandma sure would. And yet my 10 year old MacBook Pro gets it right every single fucking time; completely flawlessly. This is the bar of usability that Linux has to achieve for widespread adoption as a true, polished, personal computing experience.

edit: meant S3 sleep.

Stop being elitist about Linux, the amount of times I’ve had to explain that none of my software runs great on Linux just to have to hear how with trouble shooting it will. My work depends on the use of my software, it’s collaborative. If I have to trouble shoot every time adobe or Ableton updates it’s a bad use of my time and is actively taking time away from projects. Only I use VSTs for music production, they all work perfectly in windows and MacOS. Linux? Hit or miss.

Maybe I’m convinced. Now I gotta find the right one, set it up. Get all my software working, learn a new UI, hope that it doesn’t break collaboration. All in all, not worth the little I would save.

Stop doing this. Just be normal.

But please don't give unsolicited advice about Linux. No one wants that.

Irony: being elitist about the most egalitarian operating system

As much as I like the premise, the average Joe doesn’t care.

It is techy, as long as it’s not seamless to transition, average person won’t bother.

What a person knows already > all of the other benefits. That’s why people use Photoshop and not GIMP.

If they need to dual boot, forget it. “Can’t I just use windows instead if I have to switch anyway?”

If they can’t install it themselves, they won’t bother learning the system. Say what you want but I think Windows still shits itself less than Linux. And when it does there is a lot more people who can help without typing in cryptic commands into the terminal.

For Linux to become more popular, more open standards would need to be mainstream. Leave Adobe, MS Office and other proprietary software that everyone uses. It’s like asking people to stop using PDFs because YOU a techy person think MD is better or whatever.

I generally disagree with trying to get people to use linux now. Im seeing a lot of people leaving linux and getting turned off by the idea of it.

Aside from outliers like Android and Chrome OS, I do not think Linux is in a suitable state for non-techy people to use unfortunately. I'm really hoping PopOS will be able to change things in the future, however as it stands I really don't think it is ready for prime time.

Users expect things that kind of just work and Linux Mint has not been that experience for me. I found the app store to be kind of annoying to use and complicated. The settings app were not very well laid out and miscellaneous stuff like that, which kind of ruins the experience.

Meanwhile, there are just general Linux issues to accessibility becoming worse and worse instead of better. You have issues like we still don't have a distro with good wine integration so people can use the apps they actually need to use. The apps that we do have natively, are oftentimes relatively... janky. If you're comparing Libreoffice to Microsoft Office, the experience is just not the same, even if the technical capability is.

EDIT: I want Linux to succeed just as much as anybody else. In fact, I think I might want it to succeed more because I absolutely detest maintaining Windows installs. However, lying about the state of Linux and being dishonest about it is not the way to go about this. We should be honest with all of its issues, so to speak. So that way we can strive to make them better instead of ignoring them and sweeping them under the rug for the people we tell to trial and to find instead.

Headline: "Person new to and overly excited about Thing, starts telling other more experienced people about how to approach and think about Thing"

But you’re forgetting the most important thing—people don’t want to change. They want a big corporation to tie themselves to because brand loyalty is a replacement for the need to learn.

Linux isn’t going to replace your phone with AppleCare. Linux doesn’t have a support line to bitch to or a geek squad to call. In fact, most of the places your typical user would think to go for support will likely balk at a Linux system because they aren’t power users either—just employees trained for a specific service.

I love Linux. I flirt with going 100% FOSS all the time. But I wouldn’t recommend it for my mom. All the free security in the world couldn’t replace the value of being able to tell her “take it to Apple and let them fix it for you”.

So yes, I’m with you, but I also think we need to acknowledge that all tools serve a purpose, and some people prefer the kids meal over the big boy buffet—and that’s ok.

I've "refreshed" a couple coworker's old PCs with Linux Mint XFCE. It's actually gone pretty well.

"All I do is browse the net."

Okay, I'll put the browser right on the desktop, so you don't have to search for it. Be patient, it's an older computer. But at least this works, unlike Windows.

And I haven't really heard too much from them. Internet works. Basic needs fulfilled.

I feel like someone who knows a bit more could be more of a pain. But for very basic computing needs like paying your bills and surfing IG, it can go well.

Stop being elitist

That takes away most teenagers' motivation to use Linux xD

Not only should we not recommend Linux we should be more "elitist". If a user wants to use Linux we should provide help but we should not convince. Linux is a fundamentally technical system due to its high skill celling. It will also never be able to do everything Windows does, I may be ok with that (and most Linux users are) but the average person may not. Also why do we need to advertise? More users doesn't mean anything. The only thing that matters is more programmers who are willing to contribute and maintain along with corporate sponsors.

TLDR; there is nothing wrong with telling someone to not use Linux if they aren't already