I don't want to comment much on the rest, but the whole trope of: a Linux machine is not for someone who isn't comfortable with the cli" needs to die. My partner is essentially computer illiterate (she didn't know about keyboard shortcuts, even for copy paste before we met and still doesn't really use them) and has been using my old Ubuntu laptop for years. The only thing I do is tell her from time to time not just to click away the update (she is a good example why having optional updates is not a good thing). Her issues are pretty much the same she would have for a Windows or Mac machine, usually related to how something in a word processor works. Also my mother (78yo) is using Linux as a only system, and she does a lot of photography and video work. She has actually even become quite competent with the cli by now, just because she likes to try stuff.
The issue is that open source distributions don't have access to the level of testing and quality control that the proprietary desktop duopoly do. Microsoft and Apple can spend millions of dollars to make it very unlikely that a system update will break your system. And even if when it breaks, there is such a large user base that a solution will usually be easy to find.
Linux ditros don't have that. In my experience, Ubuntu and Fedora don't have that level of stability especially when running a heavy desktop like Gnome or KDE. My Arch laptop very stable, but I'm running a minimalist desktop. In the rare occasions where something goes wrong I have the experience and inclination to quickly learn to fix it.
I wish there were more competition in the commercial space, but I'm not sure that it's even a good idea for open source to try to match the GUI administration utilities from the proprietary OS's. It's far too much work troubleshooting weird corner cases. I wholeheartedly recommend Linux or open source for people who want the level of control over their machines that open source allows. But for people who just want their machine to work, it's reasonable to cede control to Apple or Microsoft.
Maybe PopOS, with it's backing from a commercial vendor on limited hardware will change this.
> The issue is that open source distributions don't have access to the level of testing and quality control that the proprietary desktop duopoly do.
In the case of Windows, there's a lot of onus on the OEM. Of course, most OEMs will not test Linux at all, so either you find a vendor that supports Linux or you YOLO it. Of course, if you YOLO, you're so helping ensure the market continues to make _more_ Windows-only hardware, so you can look forward to even more YOLO.
> I wish there were more competition in the commercial space,
Unlike in previous decades*, you actually can buy laptops with Linux pre-installed, from vendors that actually support it. This is huge.
If you want Linux that Just Works, for the love of God, stop buying Windows hardware. Sometimes I think the smartest thing Apple ever did was require Apple hardware to run OSX.
Searching Linux update bricking systems brought up nothing relevant. The closest I could find was a forum post by a user complaining about the update bricking their “experimental system”.
The Macos examples are particularly bad. Bricking systems with logic boards replaced by Apple repair and because you connected to “unauthorized” USB devices.
Literally the first time I installed Ubuntu in 2009, I booted into it, it asked me to install a bunch of updates, and when I did the required reboot, it dropped me into the boot terminal with a bunch of vague errors.
You have not heard of it? Well, you're replying to someone who's using Arch. With Arch, you get into trouble all the time, but if you're well versed with Linux (and Arch) you can fix it.
I'm using Arch, and ZFS, on my work laptop. A month ago, when I update my kernel, boom I had to use Systemrescue because it would no longer boot ZFS root. And of course just at that day I lost my Ventoy USB stick (probably my 2 y.o. son got rid of it ...)
The command line is a problem for intermediate users. I consider Linus from LTT to be at the upper end of intermediate and he was borderline incompetent in Linux. When you have enough knowledge to be dangerous and the hubris to assume you know everything you should need to know, you will find yourself in deep trouble quickly.
The most computer illiterate will be fine, but they will not be buying a machine like this. The most advanced people will probably be fine mainly because their expectations will be in check. I'm personally having a hard time getting my 13 year old to debug issues in windows and linux because his expectations are just too high (probably years of ipad use). He expects things should just work and get frustrated too quickly.
Anyway, I think success in linux is more mental than anything. The terminal shouldn't be the frightening thing people like to think it is. It's just FUD. I'm in the terminal all the time on my Mac and no one seems to have an issue with that.
> I'm personally having a hard time getting my 13 year old to debug issues in windows and linux because his expectations are just too high (probably years of ipad use). He expects things should just work and get frustrated too quickly.
Please persist in your effort. Teaching your kid logical thinking and scientific method ("debugging") and helping him not to be easily frustrated are probably skills that he will need anyway later on.
Thanks, I agree 100%. It's a process, he's a hormonal teenager at the moment that I have to wear white gloves with when it comes to these things. We are making progress, tho... since I got him the Steamdeck he's been in Linux about 90% of the time and asking tons of questions.
Windows is the same way. But even worse, since instead of a broken machine, you’ll enroll in some bot-net. Someone who knows enough to be dangerous in Windows starts downloaded and running random executables from the internet when things go wrong.
It's impossible to generalize across a broad range of use because each person's needs are different and non-negotiable. We've had plenty of examples of totally tech illiterate people using linux with zero problems since 1999 but they're totally irrelevant because they happen to be the people who are on the narrow set of rails that don't touch linux's rough edges.
To make a convincing case, you have to move beyond anecdote to actual statistical analysis and the numbers are still pretty overwhelming that many common things that many common people need to do can't be done without the CLI.
And even if you generate data that 60, 70, 80% of people would have no problems using linux, that's irrelevant in the case of a specific person who has a specific common need that linux falls over at.
How about we also include how MS infiltrated the education system with hidden incentives and essentially forced training in a non-free user hostile operating system to multiple genrations of people?
I think people had to learn Windows. They can learn Linux. The excuses are bs. Schools should teach unix/linux, and not proprietary systems. We should expect people to learn new things to be able to operate new tools. Thats ok to expect. This idea that the computer is a dumb terminal is far too prevelant thanks to phone and tablet proliferation, another tech corrupted at the outset to be user-hostile and spy on them.
Desktop linix and laptop linux are 99% of the way there. Yes, you will have to learn new commands and ways of doing things. Yes, some software you are used to won't work (wine be praised).
It's worth all the trouble though. Freedom isn't free, you have to actively persue it.
I look around and see way too much Stockholm Syndrome going on.
It's all software really. Most people would be fine without Adobe or Microsoft Office or Google Docs. We don't need to train kids with GitHub, Sibelius or Dorico, the list goes on. Concepts don't require application-specific training and the FOSS options are largely good enough if not better than the proprietary competitors.
> How about we also include how MS infiltrated the education system with hidden incentives and essentially forced training in a non-free user hostile operating system to multiple genrations of people?
When was the last time you used Windows? Microsoft employees a small army of user experience designers to ensure it’s a great experience. It’s not perfect, but I can do everything I need to do using the GUI.
This isn’t a case of learning how to do the same thing differently. The GUI is objectively better for most consumer use cases. Linux, for better and worse, relies more heavily on CLI.
Holistic "experience" to me includes privacy protections. Windows spies on the user at every turn. GUI elements are not hard to get right. Launchers make it all even easier.
Changing mouse acceleration settings is one I ran into, there was no option in the UI at all and google searches brought up config file edits that went completely over my head. I think it was on either Pop or Fedora KDE.
In windows it will come up by typing 'mouse' into start.
At least on my Arch KDE setup it's System Settings -> Input Devices -> Mouse and I've got an Acceleration Profile option between Flat or Adaptive. I can also just open up the settings and search for "acceleration" to get there. I can also just pop open the "start menu" (or whatever you choose to call it for KDE) and type "acceleration" and the first option is "Mouse"
I'm not sure if Windows has finer grained control in the GUI or not, but TBH I've also never ran into anyone but a techie (and very few of them) who had mouse acceleration set to anything non-standard.
Oh yeah, Arch isn't for the faint of heart, but this should work on any distro running KDE. A quick check tells me Ubuntu is running Gnome 3 by default where you need Gnome Tweak Tool to access the same setting. That sucks, I agree, and I hate that Gnome is trying to go the direction of mobile by locking things down and removing configuration, but considering the OSX doesn't expose this setting at all and you need either the terminal or a 3rd party app to modify it, I also don't think that not having this setting readily available disqualifies Linux from being usable without the terminal, unless we're going to claim the same is true of Macs.
That adjusts speed, not acceleration. Tweak Tool is indeed what’s needed, but it’s not apparent to a newbie. I spent hours finding that particular app when I first used Ubuntu. It’s absurd that that kind of functionality isn’t built in.
Mouse speed is how far the cursor moves for some distance of physical mouse movement.
Mouse acceleration additionally makes the cursor's speed increase when the mouse's acceleration (change of speed over time) is faster.
Mouse acceleration is annoying (bordering on infuriating, imo) because it changes cursor movement from an easy 1:1 mapping of mouse movement->cursor movement by adding an additional dimension. You then not only have to keep in mind how far you're moving your mouse, but also how quickly you're moving it. I can't fathom why UI designers seem to think that it's so great that it should be present with no ability to disable it.
This is quite typical of the kinds of things you need to “dip into the CLI” for Linux that people complain about.
Things that other OS’es usually don’t even allow.
Edit: Another issue with Linux configs is that since nearly every setting can be changed through the CLI, and it’s usually a single liner at that, most online resources tend to provide the single liner that one can use to copy/paste into the CLI to achieve what they want, because the alternative is providing like 10 screenshots for 15 steps for someone to try and painstakingly replicate with their mouse or trackpad.
The most common example of this is that pretty much every application will give its installation instructions as:
sudo apt install thunderbird (On gnome).
When you can just as well go to the software center, search thunderbird, and hit install. Or go to thunderbird.com, download the package and double click/install.
However, the CLI method is clearly far superior and easier, yet it leads to complaints about having to “dip into the CLI”.
Radarr needs functionality that is more specialized than most apps so there's special instructions and edge cases on all three platforms. But the Linux version is significantly more complicated because Linux doesn't provide as many out of the box tools for installation that works across all distributions like Windows or Mac.
I mean I'd just use containers (e.g. Docker) for it with a reverse proxy (also container). But I also don't think this is software which you're supposed to run on a System 76 laptop. You're supposed to run it on a 24/7 machine, a server. Could be a Raspberry Pi (if you can get hold of one :P).
Solving problems. Like, the happy path may have a UI, but if that doesn't work, or isn't quite right, any troubleshooting most likely will not have a UI.
Why would you be installing NVidia drivers in a machine that has come with Linux preloaded and graphics drivers already installed?
Oh, you’re doing an Apple to Oranges comparison between Linux manually installed on a machine vs Mac or Windows coming preloaded on the machine?
Because if you did an apples to apples comparison, any decent computer with Linux preinstalled will come with all the drivers installed as well. And when it comes to manually installing, installing drivers for Windows can also be a pain, and don’t even get started on trying to install Mac on a machine it didn’t come preinstalled on. Hackintoshes are hard to make work even for experts.
Last time I ran Ubuntu, (which has admittedly been years) it'd start with the open source drivers by default and prompt you with an to install the proprietary drivers. Doing so was two clicks.
I have quarter of century experience working on Linux including running it on all my laptops and desktops for 23 years.
Over the years keeping it working started becoming what seems like a full time job and I jumped the ship for M1 MacBook Pro. It still has a lot of problems but at least I have more time to do my actual work.
I understand I might just becoming less tolerant of wasting time on things that should just work (my actual work being more and more distant from tinkering with OS internals).
But, if I with all my experience am spending time keeping it alive, what has to do a person that has no idea about systemd or pulse audio or dealing with failed upgrades or anything else? Essentially -- you are using it until first problem happens and then you can either reinstall it from scratch or switch to Windows or Mac.
I still keep a Linux laptop dedicated for critical security tasks (I don't trust Apple this much) and a number of Linux VMs (I am running small datacenter at home).
In my experience, the people who spend so much time maintaining their Linux are the people hacking on their OS. Which is something I encourage; the customizability of Linux is part of what makes it so great.
But if you load up the newest Ubuntu lts on a laptop and never fiddle with configs, switch display managers/ desktops, etc, then there will be zero maintenance required.
I agree, if you install and never do anything with it it will usually work. But that isn't very high bar for usability. What about people who actually use their machines for anything else than just browsing Internets? I had people break it even in this relatively simple case.
I'll give you an example. I am using an external DAC (connected over Toslink). It starts up automatically when it detects digital audio signal and shuts down when the signal stops. Unfortunately, the startup sequence takes couple of seconds (it has a delay of 2s and then slowly increases the volume over 4s, can't be configured).
So in the default configuration, PipeWire insists to turn off the audio whenever there is no client to play anything for more than X seconds.
This is super annoying, every time you try to play youtube video after going to kitchen for coffee you are loosing first couple of seconds of audio.
This can be changed (remove a module that causes automatic suspend), but over last couple of years I had to redo this configuration at least 5-6 times after various PipeWire upgrades because PipeWire developers don't give a shit about user configuration and are happy to override it or in fact do some stupid things like move it from /etc to /usr/share so you are left guessing why your config files no longer do what they were supposed to do.
ArchWiki is a well-known recommendation to every newbie who has technical needs.
Quote:
"PulseAudio will first look for configuration files in the home directory ~/.config/pulse/, and if they are not found, the system-wide configuration from /etc/pulse/ will be applied.
Tip:
It is strongly suggested not to edit system-wide configuration files, but rather edit user ones. Create the ~/.config/pulse directory, then copy the system configuration files into it and edit according to your need.
Make sure you keep user configuration in sync with changes to the packaged files in /etc/pulse/. Otherwise, PulseAudio may refuse to start due to configuration errors."
"[...]or by creating a new file that includes it with the syntax .include /etc/pulse/name. For simple changes the latter is preferred because the user will not be required to update the file when system-wide defaults change."
So this particular example is moot unless PA somehow disregards the /home config and loads its system-wide config anyway or does some weird overrides. Any details or other examples?
I normally don't edit the text substantially after somebody responds but this time I corrected Pulse to PipeWire not to slander Pulse developers for no reason.
Eh, maybe this behavior was changed, but PipeWire works in the same way ATM:
"The PipeWire configuration template file is located in /usr/share/pipewire/pipewire.conf. You can copy and edit the file to /etc/pipewire/ or ~/.config/pipewire/pipewire.conf.
Since 0.3.45 you can also copy fragments of the config file to a file in the directories /usr/share/pipewire/pipewire.conf.d/, /etc/pipewire/pipewire.conf.d/ or ~/.config/pipewire/pipewire.conf.d/."
TBH, while this is a common pattern across Linux applications, the thought to look for override location in the /home folder comes solely from experience and I am not aware of any place suggesting it. I tend to treat all of root as if it was an immutable file system that is a hassle to edit manually. Saves a lot of headache.
I've been running Linux for most of the last 25 years, too. But I've mostly
learned how to keep things simple.
I buy high-DPI Dell Precision laptops. They're pricey, and the build-quality is meh, but they come preloaded with Linux. Everything works. I leave all but a few settings on factory defaults, and I never run anything but a "Long Term Support" release of the OS. In case of hardware issues, I buy an on-site service plan.
I won't claim that it's perfect. But I spend less than 20 hours a year "keeping it working." Which is less than some of my MacOS coworkers spend fighting with Docker and other Unix tools on the Mac, so it's a wash. It's not like getting the Python development ecosystem to work on an M1 Mac is all sweetness and joy.
One secret to my success is that I try very hard not to customize anything. To paraphrase Yoda, once you start down that path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
I do not recommend Linux for casual users. But for developers who deploy on Linux, it can be a very reasonable choice.
No one is claiming Linux is bad for very basic users. It’s fine for people who only ever use bowsers. Linux is also great for developers. It’s most of us in between who struggle. The last time I booted up Ubuntu I couldn’t even adjust the mouse acceleration without spending 10 minutes on Google and more time installing an additional tool. I tried to install Radarr - a very popular home media server app. The instruction manual required is absurd: https://wiki.servarr.com/radarr/installation
Linux developers need to start caring about UX if they want the OS to appreciably rise above 1-2% consumer. Users should never ever, for any reason ever, need to open the CLI. Not when I want to install or configure an app, and certainly not when I want to update a driver or setting.
I disagree on not using the cli for installing things etc. Instructions on commands are much easier than instruction about the gui, because they are easily copy pastable.
One example i encounter quite a bit, the instructions for installing python and packages for building cython modules. I have students who are very much intermediate Windows users, but explaining to them how to get the development (they need python for experiment control and analysis) environment going is really painful. They often take days to get in going. On the other hand Linux users are much easier, I just give them the commands to install the packages in an email.
Your use case is for developers, and as above, I agree that CLI is easier for that demographic. I am referring to the people between developers and "only ever use browsers." For them I strongly disagree with the notion of telling them to blindly copy and paste sudo commands into terminal. And if the implication is that they should just become proficient with using terminal, then I strongly disagree with anyone having to learn a new skill to install and configure apps and services. We have easy, well tested and well adopted conventions for software now. It's time to accept what is, instead of fighting for what you think others should like.
First of all, training users to copy stuff into a terminal is just a bad idea.
Also, youre basically suggested that users use a GUI (a web browser) to get instructions on how to use a command line.
It makes a lot more sense for there to be a clear and easy to use package manager, and if users are having trouble figuring that out, work needs to be done to rectify that.
Also, if you’re targeting power users who are familiar with the command line, that’s one thing. But right now linux desktop feels like it wants to be everything for everyone and that’s a very hard rope to walk
> I disagree on not using the cli for installing things
I think that it depends on who the target audience is. For myself, I heavily prefer the command line for literally everything. But if the goal is for Linux on desktop to be beginner/non-power-user friendly then I agree with the parent comment that you should be able to do everything without opening the CLI.
For me, I will always be happier with CLI tools. :)
While true, this appears to require the CLI. As above, I strongly believe that the CLI should never ever, for any reason ever, be required to install apps. Dockers are also not exactly plug and play, and some understanding of what dockers are, how to maintain them, how to grant file and folder permissions, and how to update packages is required. Your suggestion presents a new set of problems.
I've had these issues with Gnome and Gnome derivatives. Give KDE Plasma a try. The UI/UX situation is vastly different (this is coming from a Gnome lifer).
That's because it's written by developers. Devs are generally really poor at explaining things and they rarely have enough empathy to even notice that "normal people" might not necessarily understand (or care) as to why would they be better off compiling software from source. It's a known problem: documentation writing is one of the most hated software engineering-related work. It's a self-defeating but prevalent notion that "you can just read the code, so why would I write the docs?" Also: "nobody reads the docs" -> "why would I put effort into writing something nobody reads?" -> the docs are bad (obviously) -> "nobody reads the docs"...
In this particular case: the docs here are really, really badly structured and the styles/colors/margins/etc make it even less readable. At least, however, the authors of the wiki try to be helpful:
> If you want an easy life, follow this community provided and maintained Easy Install script for a base Debian (Raspbian / Raspberry Pi OS) / Ubuntu install.
There's a link to the script below. That's already the best you can expect from developers who are not specifically paid to produce installers (or, alternatively, use a framework that generates the installers automatically). The vast majority of devs never consider that people would like to easily and quickly install their software to try it out, then uninstall it if it's not to their liking.
Also, why would you spend your time on an un-installer? If the user doesn't like their software, the devs assume it's the user's problem, not theirs. It's so irritating that I've set up automatic snapshots on /usr/ and /usr/local/ just to be able to easily get rid of stuff that ends up there with every `make install` I execute.
I know how it sounds - I'm not trying to justify this way of working on and with software, just thought I'll share what little insight I got after working with Linux-y things for two decades...
> The last time I booted up Ubuntu I couldn’t even adjust the mouse acceleration without spending 10 minutes on Google
It doesn't change anything, but I had a pretty horrible experience with Windows and MacOS drivers for Logitech trackballs[1][2]. While the setup on Linux took a few hours, included 3 different applications, 4 different config files, and dozens of man pages to read, it at least enabled me to actually get the most out of the hardware. It was utterly impossible to configure the trackballs to my liking under Windows. I didn't try very hard under MacOS, but the initial research suggested it's even worse there (Logitech seemed to be hell-bent on "Windows first, second, and last" policy for some reason).
> Users should never ever, for any reason ever, need to open the CLI.
Not sure I agree, not fully. Text-based interfaces have their place - they present very different trade-off between accessibility and convenience than GUIs do. There's a reason why the command prompt metaphor is still alive, 30+ years after the hardware got good enough to display a GUI on home computers. Though it's probably better left to people who want to use it, not people who are forced to use it; kind of like regedit.exe was always shipped with Windows, even though 99%[3] of users didn't (need to) know of its existence.
I understand this is the fault of the developer, but that's not my problem. I'm a consumer and I want my application to install in under 60 seconds like it does in Windows. Too many developers rely on the CLI in Linux, and this means that, too often, my Linux experience is much worse than my Windows experience. I don't care who is to blame. It just is.
>Though it's probably better left to people who want to use it, not people who are forced to use it; kind of like regedit.exe was always shipped with Windows, even though 99%[3] of users didn't (need to) know of its existence.
I agree. To be clear, the CLI has many benefits. It just has so few, comparatively, in the consumer space, and developers seem adamant to push consumers to use the CLI in Linux. For 99% of my use cases, everything is easier and faster in a GUI.
You already know the answer to this: if you don't like it, you should fix it! It's open source! In other words, the all too familiar blaming the victim.
It's silly, yes. Especially since there are at least 5 ways of making self-contained, one-file or single-directory distributions of software under Linux. Discord comes as a zip file that you need to unpack, then click on the "Discord" executable - and done. Joplin (my note-taking app choice) uses AppImage, where you download a single file and run it, done. It can be done. Yet, it's not done in the vast majority of cases.
You're not interested in reasons why it's not being widely adopted, so let me just talk to myself. Personally, I'd blame package managers. They are too good, too convenient, to the point that not using them is a real hassle. Those of us who remember the dependency hell won't give up package managers until death do us part. Yet, there are too many of them. Having 3 different pkg managers on a single system (deb, snap, flatpak) is sheer madness.
There's also obsession with dynamic linking combined with reluctance to bundle the required libraries with an app (because updates! we would need to actually track development and test new versions of libraries as they appear, who has time for that?!), and a few other problems. As a whole it's a societal problem that won't go away in the foreseeable future. It's also... not a bad problem to have. It guarantees a heavy push-back against app stores, at least.
I have used the Radarr and Sonarr Docker images for around 5 years now. Those were super easy to deploy -- so when I read this comment that the manual was ridiculous I didn't believe it.
Then I read the manual and it's totally true: this is some of the least user-friendly documentation I have ever seen! Terribly tough to follow.
Yeah, it's a bit like "A windows machine is not for someone who isn't comfortable editing registry entries".
Or "A mac is not for someone who isn't comfortable with hidden system files".
I.e. things the average user doesn't interact with anyway, and if they have to they'll probably do it by following a couple of steps blindly from the internet and that is that.
Same here. I put mint on my.computer illiterate girlfriend's old computer. She used it as effectively as any other os. The update issue is real though.
