4 ms·

Running native Linux for non-technical users ends up being a great move as long as the programs they want to run work on it. For example imagine a retired non-t

by nickjj 5y ago

Running native Linux for non-technical users ends up being a great move as long as the programs they want to run work on it. For example imagine a retired non-technical person who occasionally trades stocks. Even major trading platforms like Interactive Brokers have native Linux clients. Non-technical users want a stable system that doesn't constantly change. Windows loves to hit you with popup notices or UI changes where if you take the "ok" route things about your system change, or you accidentally click a notification that comes up and suddenly your browser is changed or worse. They also don't want to turn on their machine and have to wait 30 minutes for an "important update". They just want to turn their machine on and have it be exactly how it was yesterday. A non-technical person I know thought he was hacked and wanted to buy a new computer because a shortcut icon was moved from his desktop to his recycle bin and he thought someone wiped out his computer. Now in Microsoft's defense they didn't delete his shortcut, but that's the type of mindset non-technical folks have. The slightest change is a catastrophic event.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> Non-technical users want a stable system that doesn't constantly change. ...and you're recommending Linux Desktop for that? An operating system famous for breaking compatibility with itself every 2 years or so? Not to mention between distros. I mean, I suppose you can just leave them on some arbitrary un-updated version of Ubuntu forever, but the same could be said for Windows 2000.
- dgan 5y ago
  This is misleading, as you can always turn on security updates, and turn off applications upgrades. I don't even know that's possible on Windows (I guess answer is a loud and clear NO)
  - wrs 5y ago
    For a few years, until that version stops getting security updates. E.g., about three years for Debian. [0] [0] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases
    - Silhouette 5y ago
      Debian Stable typically gets ~3 years of official security updates, but then in reality the LTS project is excellent and probably gives you two more years, and now there's also the ELTS project that might give you two more beyond that. Which major commercial OS has a realistic expectation today of getting security updates for so long without being forced to change other parts of your system that you like as they are? Windows did, if you go back to the days when Microsoft published product lifecycle information many years into the future, before 10 deliberately broke that whole model and the stability that came with it.
      - wrs 5y ago
        MacOS averages 3-4 years too. My point was just that if you want a user experience that never changes and only gets security updates, Linux isn’t the answer either (as the great-grandparent comment implied). At most, if you luckily sync up with an LTS version, you get a couple more years.
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  You can run LTS versions of Ubuntu and receive support for 5 years.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Non-server Windows editions, at least before 10, had security updates for almost 10 years. And new software often continues to function on old versions of Windows for far longer.
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      I wasn’t trying to imply that Ubuntu has longer support than windows, only that it doesn’t constantly make breaking changes. If you want you can use it and update once every five years and have a fairly stable desktop.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        Sure, if you don't count all the software that no longer has a package in the latest version's repo and therefore is no longer available. Oh and whatever features GNOME decided to remove this time.
        michaelmrose 5y ago
        So don't use gnome and switch to something that isn't abandonware
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        So, deal with things changing all the time. Exactly the thing we were trying to avoid with this exercise.
        michaelmrose 5y ago
        I think in 18 years exactly one piece of software I wished to keep using has died an untimely death and it was impractical to keep using it.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  Xubuntu hasn't changed substantially, and Ubuntu Mate only a bit in a decade plus.
- beagle3 5y ago
  I just set up Ubuntu 20.04 with Unity which is still there, and it looks exactly the same as the 14.04 it replaced. Might not be there in 22.04, who knows. But even switching to Ubuntu Gnome is less of a difference than the Win7 -> Win8 -> Win10 transition I had to guide some older family members through.
  - dolmen 5y ago
    > Ubuntu 20.04 with Unity which is still there, and it looks exactly the same as the 14.04 it replaced That's not what users aged about 80 think. From direct observation, a print icon moving or a menu bar disappearing are just enough to make them crazy. I know someone who keeps the old computer from 2008 around because "I prefer how Gimp is organized there".
- nickjj 5y ago
  > I mean, I suppose you can just leave them on some arbitrary un-updated version of Ubuntu forever, but the same could be said for Windows 2000. Certain programs they run won't work on old operating systems like Windows 7 or 2000 but they work on Windows 10 and Linux. Running an unmaintained old copy of Windows 7 would be pretty bad for someone non-technical because if they decide to ever go-to a questionable site of their choosing, chances are they will get themselves in trouble with a virus / malware. You can run Xubuntu 20.04 LTS for a few years with unattended updates turned on so they get automated non-UI breaking security patches. Then when it goes EOL upgrade to the next LTS, or even turn on unattended upgrades too with a stipulation that something might change once every few years instead of twice a week. It's a really good environment IMO.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Nothing is making you run arch Linux with gnome wayland on your btrfs raid 5 with pipewire sound. One could have installed mint mate 16 in 2013 and painlessly updated between versions without huge difference between then and now. Linux isn't a product like windows it's an ecosystem use whatever works for you.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cosmojg 5y ago
  Lmfao, it's 2021. Stop parroting this tired meme. Linux runs beautifully if you aren't doing anything crazy with it. I say this as a sysadmin responsible for maintaining a small fleet, the majority of which are Linux boxes. I've wasted far more hours helping end users with OS-level problems on Windows and, to a lesser extent, macOS. This is in spite of the fact that, again, the majority of the machines I manage run Linux, and all of these users are similar in technical capability. Give it a try yourself. I'm sure a lot has changed since you last used it. Oh, and make sure you pick something that holds your hand a bit like Manjaro, Pop!_OS, Mint, or EndeavourOS.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    I've been using Linux Desktop on and off for 2 decades now, have contributed to open source projects on Linux, have built my own Linux distro, and was once president of a LUG. It is my personal opinion that it isn't a good desktop operating system. You're free to disagree, but don't assume that I have no idea what I'm talking about. And you might have been slightly more persuasive by not being a condescending ass, but that's asking a lot of a Linux Desktop evangelist in my experience.
grishka 5y ago
In other words: people hate updates. Especially so if those updates don't give them anything new but just move stuff around instead. That's what everyone working in IT should understand. No, you can't "always push an update". Always treat your every single release like your last one because there will be many people who will stick with that version.

by nickjj 5y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> Non-technical users want a stable system that doesn't constantly change. ...and you're recommending Linux Desktop for that? An operating system famous for breaking compatibility with itself every 2 years or so? Not to mention between distros. I mean, I suppose you can just leave them on some arbitrary un-updated version of Ubuntu forever, but the same could be said for Windows 2000.

dgan 5y ago
This is misleading, as you can always turn on security updates, and turn off applications upgrades. I don't even know that's possible on Windows (I guess answer is a loud and clear NO)
- wrs 5y ago
  For a few years, until that version stops getting security updates. E.g., about three years for Debian. [0] [0] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases
  - Silhouette 5y ago
    Debian Stable typically gets ~3 years of official security updates, but then in reality the LTS project is excellent and probably gives you two more years, and now there's also the ELTS project that might give you two more beyond that. Which major commercial OS has a realistic expectation today of getting security updates for so long without being forced to change other parts of your system that you like as they are? Windows did, if you go back to the days when Microsoft published product lifecycle information many years into the future, before 10 deliberately broke that whole model and the stability that came with it.
    - wrs 5y ago
      MacOS averages 3-4 years too. My point was just that if you want a user experience that never changes and only gets security updates, Linux isn’t the answer either (as the great-grandparent comment implied). At most, if you luckily sync up with an LTS version, you get a couple more years.
wbsss4412 5y ago
You can run LTS versions of Ubuntu and receive support for 5 years.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Non-server Windows editions, at least before 10, had security updates for almost 10 years. And new software often continues to function on old versions of Windows for far longer.
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    I wasn’t trying to imply that Ubuntu has longer support than windows, only that it doesn’t constantly make breaking changes. If you want you can use it and update once every five years and have a fairly stable desktop.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      Sure, if you don't count all the software that no longer has a package in the latest version's repo and therefore is no longer available. Oh and whatever features GNOME decided to remove this time.
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        So don't use gnome and switch to something that isn't abandonware
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        So, deal with things changing all the time. Exactly the thing we were trying to avoid with this exercise.
        michaelmrose 5y ago
        I think in 18 years exactly one piece of software I wished to keep using has died an untimely death and it was impractical to keep using it.
mixmastamyk 5y ago
Xubuntu hasn't changed substantially, and Ubuntu Mate only a bit in a decade plus.
beagle3 5y ago
I just set up Ubuntu 20.04 with Unity which is still there, and it looks exactly the same as the 14.04 it replaced. Might not be there in 22.04, who knows. But even switching to Ubuntu Gnome is less of a difference than the Win7 -> Win8 -> Win10 transition I had to guide some older family members through.
- dolmen 5y ago
  > Ubuntu 20.04 with Unity which is still there, and it looks exactly the same as the 14.04 it replaced That's not what users aged about 80 think. From direct observation, a print icon moving or a menu bar disappearing are just enough to make them crazy. I know someone who keeps the old computer from 2008 around because "I prefer how Gimp is organized there".
nickjj 5y ago
> I mean, I suppose you can just leave them on some arbitrary un-updated version of Ubuntu forever, but the same could be said for Windows 2000. Certain programs they run won't work on old operating systems like Windows 7 or 2000 but they work on Windows 10 and Linux. Running an unmaintained old copy of Windows 7 would be pretty bad for someone non-technical because if they decide to ever go-to a questionable site of their choosing, chances are they will get themselves in trouble with a virus / malware. You can run Xubuntu 20.04 LTS for a few years with unattended updates turned on so they get automated non-UI breaking security patches. Then when it goes EOL upgrade to the next LTS, or even turn on unattended upgrades too with a stipulation that something might change once every few years instead of twice a week. It's a really good environment IMO.
michaelmrose 5y ago
Nothing is making you run arch Linux with gnome wayland on your btrfs raid 5 with pipewire sound. One could have installed mint mate 16 in 2013 and painlessly updated between versions without huge difference between then and now. Linux isn't a product like windows it's an ecosystem use whatever works for you.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cosmojg 5y ago
Lmfao, it's 2021. Stop parroting this tired meme. Linux runs beautifully if you aren't doing anything crazy with it. I say this as a sysadmin responsible for maintaining a small fleet, the majority of which are Linux boxes. I've wasted far more hours helping end users with OS-level problems on Windows and, to a lesser extent, macOS. This is in spite of the fact that, again, the majority of the machines I manage run Linux, and all of these users are similar in technical capability. Give it a try yourself. I'm sure a lot has changed since you last used it. Oh, and make sure you pick something that holds your hand a bit like Manjaro, Pop!_OS, Mint, or EndeavourOS.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  I've been using Linux Desktop on and off for 2 decades now, have contributed to open source projects on Linux, have built my own Linux distro, and was once president of a LUG. It is my personal opinion that it isn't a good desktop operating system. You're free to disagree, but don't assume that I have no idea what I'm talking about. And you might have been slightly more persuasive by not being a condescending ass, but that's asking a lot of a Linux Desktop evangelist in my experience.

grishka 5y ago

In other words: people hate updates. Especially so if those updates don't give them anything new but just move stuff around instead. That's what everyone working in IT should understand. No, you can't "always push an update". Always treat your every single release like your last one because there will be many people who will stick with that version.