4 ms·

No. I use RPM distros like OpenSUSE. They just don't ask the necessary questions just notify you. So if you installed SAMBA to share files or printers, the dist

by okanat 1y ago

No. I use RPM distros like OpenSUSE. They just don't ask the necessary questions just notify you. So if you installed SAMBA to share files or printers, the distro update will break stuff without telling you. A user-friendly OS should require almost 0 system administration except emergencies. Windows is that OS and Linux is not. Android is closest Linux ever got and it is pretty good. I say that as a person who deals with my own cloud stuff (Nextcloud / Jellyfin media servers) and as one of the maintainers of our embedded distro at my day job.

exe34 1y ago
A typical user shouldn't have to install samba. If you're the system admin for them, you install samba when you install their system (they wouldn't be installing windows either!). The only reason this is coming up is because you might not be forced to install samba as part of a typical linux install whereas a typical windows install includes everything you will never need.
- okanat 1y ago
  That's the thing: the amount of sysadmin role I would like to play for my family is nearly 0. And, no simple file sharing or accessing NAS systems shouldn't require a "sysadmin". They should work out of the box for a consumer computer system with minimal configuration and updates shouldn't break functionality. Windows provides this Linux doesn't. Windows OS design, the overall mentality of the developers designing software for Windows also reinforces this pattern. A consumer system should keep working without asking user unnecessary questions. They have to be designed to be somewhat future proof so breaking binary and configuration compatibility is minimal. With Linux systems (or any bazaar-style OS) this is impossible.
  - exe34 1y ago
    > They should work out of the box for a consumer computer system with minimal configuration and updates shouldn't break functionality. Windows provides this Linux doesn't. Have you asked for a refund?

by okanat 1y ago

exe34 1y ago

A typical user shouldn't have to install samba. If you're the system admin for them, you install samba when you install their system (they wouldn't be installing windows either!). The only reason this is coming up is because you might not be forced to install samba as part of a typical linux install whereas a typical windows install includes everything you will never need.

okanat 1y ago
That's the thing: the amount of sysadmin role I would like to play for my family is nearly 0. And, no simple file sharing or accessing NAS systems shouldn't require a "sysadmin". They should work out of the box for a consumer computer system with minimal configuration and updates shouldn't break functionality. Windows provides this Linux doesn't. Windows OS design, the overall mentality of the developers designing software for Windows also reinforces this pattern. A consumer system should keep working without asking user unnecessary questions. They have to be designed to be somewhat future proof so breaking binary and configuration compatibility is minimal. With Linux systems (or any bazaar-style OS) this is impossible.
- exe34 1y ago
  > They should work out of the box for a consumer computer system with minimal configuration and updates shouldn't break functionality. Windows provides this Linux doesn't. Have you asked for a refund?