this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
151 points (91.3% liked)
Linux
48328 readers
641 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Being a person who replies to lots of new users questions I strongly disagree. 99% of the questions come from a Windows mindset, so it requires some deconstruction of the way the person is thinking, have you noticed how very few Mac users ask beginner questions on Linux forums?
There's a big difference between something is different and someone is used to doing the things differently, driving on the left or right is just as difficult, bit if you've driven all of your life one way switching up can be difficult. Just like that a lot of Linux concepts are different from what people are used to if they come from a Windows background, but the same is true the other way around. As someone who's been using Linux for decades I find windows weird and convoluted, but I know that this is just my perception, and that someone who's using it daily is used to that.
Edit: if you're going to reply to this, mind providing an example of something you think is easy on Windows but hard on Linux?
Just to be clear, I agree with you practically 100%, and you can see my response to this person in the same thread as well, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I'll give you a few examples of things that are easier on Windows (and most also are easier on MacOS) than they are on Linux (or at least some distros depending on which you pick):
There are probably plenty more, and there are things that are easier on Linux. But again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Each of those examples are less intuitive to complete on Linux (or at least some distros) than they are in Windows. As someone who has been using Linux for a decade, I don't think that they are all hard, but many are also less intuitive in Linux than MacOS, just to address your first point. When you have to start adding PPAs/repos to get specific things, I'd argue that's objectively less intuitive than the alternatives in other operating systems, and not merely a different way of thinking. In many cases though, for most things, there are intuitive solutions that exist in Linux. There are plenty of cases where someone overcomplicates something they want to do in Linux by using a Windows mindset, so I still agree with you there. I just think it's a little more nuanced than you seemed to imply.
I had written a more thorough response, but the app crashed and I lost it. Sorry of this one sounds a bit harsh, I do mostly agree with you, I just think that the examples you've chosen are bad because they're either distro specific (so not a Linux problem but a problem with that distro), or not Linux problems (i.e. there's nothing Linux can do about it because the problem doesn't lie on Linux but elsewhere)
Distro specific. It should be just like installing anything else, and it is for some distros, certainty for the ones I've been using.
Distro specific, I've had NVIDIA drivers auto-updating for the past 15 years or so, long before Windows had that same capabilities. And it updates with my regular system update, no need to use any special GUI for it.
Not Linux problem. Also, while I can see the argument that's easier to use what's already installed, that tells you nothing of how easy one thing is in comparison to the other. If computers came with the most convolutedly complex and unusable crap of an OS, full of bloatware and spyware pre-installed people would still use it. Not to mention that the Linux installation process was much easier than Windows for the longest time (until windows finally implemented automatic driver installation)
Not Linux problem. Although this is something to bear in mind while choosing your OS, it's the companies that make games that are at fault here, there's nothing Linux can do to remedy this situation, so it's unfair to judge it for it. That's like saying Windows is harder to use because running docker containers in it is impossible without some virtualisation, while this is something to consider when deciding what OS will you use to self-host, it's not per-se a reason why Windows is more difficult to use.
Same as above.
Like I said, I agree with lots of what you said, and some of those are thing to keep in mind when choosing an OS, but those are not good arguments as for which OS is simpler than the other. The Linux way to do most of them is using the package manager, and that's much simpler than searching the internet for the correct download.
The greatest contribution of Nvidia to FOSS had been to keep many such thinking people hostage to proprietary solutions and out of our visibility.
You know, those that refuse to learn anything new, refuse to read documents, believe that by controlling input/output through terminal is inferior to gui-blindness.
@Nibodhika @Para_lyzed
Yes NVIDIA is crap which is why my next GPU will not be NVIDIA. However you need to remember AMD used to be crappier, and the last time I bought a GPU I still didn't trusted AMD.
Also not sure what your answer has to do with the ongoing discussion.
Auto downloading and installing software is pretty much a violation of ethics in the unix ecosystem, pretty much anything that begins with Auto should be rejected.
But the general public wants the convenience and luxury of having things done by others without being bothered. Many distros competing with each other for lazy newcomers (ubuntu, mint, debian, manjaro, ...) they provide all those non-unix like utilities.
Lately it is getting worse, all sorts of telemtry is branded good
@Nibodhika
I assume you're talking about the "auto-update" drivers. That's pretty standard Linux thing, everything "auto" updates when you tell your system to update, that's one of the huge advantages of package managers, not sure which Linux have you used, but the vast majority of them do have a package manager that updates everything (including drivers).
I have never used such a system, I don't know of a single one, and I wouldn't use such a system.
@Nibodhika
Would you mind telling us which obscure Linux distro do you use that doesn't have a package manager? And how do you update your system?
I have used apt apt-get, apk, pacman, xbps, and I have never encountered an auto-update
Even dumb-gui like synaptics or pamac don't auto-update
@Nibodhika
All of those upgrade the drivers when you upgrade your system just like I mentioned.
Then what you consider automatic is a very unique perception of how things work.
In a car automatic transmission means it shifts on its own.
In a non automatic either you shift or it doesn't happen.
On most pkg managers YOU elect when to upgrade, the output is a list of "upgradable" pkgs, then you are asked whether to proceed or not. Nothing automatic about this.
Auto update would mean software has been updated on its own without you authorizing it.
@Nibodhika
No it's not, every sane person considers automatic to have little or no human interaction, but some human interaction to trigger the flow is still a thing, next you'll tell me that an automatic weapon fires on it's own will, or that an automatic garage door decides when to open. A single command that updates all of your system seems pretty automated to me, if not try doing your next update manually by downloading every single package from their source, compiling it if needed, and copying it into the correct folders, do that for every one of the hundreds of packages that get updates and then tell me that a single command is not automating a lot of that away for you.
It doesn't even work how you're describing in Windows, you get prompted whether you want to update there.
It seems you misunderstand what the other commenter meant. By "auto-update", they mean that the package is fetched and updated when you request your package manager to perform an update/upgrade (meaning that the user specifically requested the packages be updated, not that it happened on its own). This comes from my use of the term "auto-updating" in reference to Nvidia drivers on Windows, which will automatically check for updates on boot, in comparison to the closest equivalent with Linux distros in which the drivers would be updated by the package manager (but still do not require the user to manually install a new version separately, as would be the case if trying to use Nvidia's official runfile installer). I grouped the Linux drivers from a package manager into the "auto-update" category, which I realize in hindsight is a bit confusing given the nature of updating through a package manager.