2025 the year of Linux

[Lucio Chiappetti]

Most users just need a knife: install/uninstall/reinstall.

Also "update".

Curiously enough, while i have "been born on the command line", and normally work from a terminal window and prefer command-line to GUIs for anything which is "working commands", for package loading (of prebuilt packages in a distro) I prefer a graphic tool like Synaptic. Not because it is graphic, but because it is also a search tool.

[moonbat]

Even Synaptic is quite bare bones; if you're looking for software the Software Manager on Mint offer a better app-store like experience. You can browse available software by category and search, and it also supports user reviews. Other distros may have equivalents; I use KDE Neon which offers Discover for the same purpose.

[BloxDeGroteUnsklled]

I just have a question about a topic that is pretty debatable: why do many folks stand with the false assumption that macOS is Linux-based, even though most sources never state this, and macOS only gets SO similar to Linux? Forget that macOS is closer to BSDs, but it is a completely different Unix-like kernel. One guy told me, "Isn't macOS based on Linux?". Then when I told them the whole truth, they said, "but it's still based on Linux". The much vaster availability of apps on macOS confirms that this statement is oh so untrue. This question isn't opinion-based; it's fact-based.

Not intending to create bias here, but it was a Windows user who told me that macOS is Linux-based.

[Night Wing]

@ BloxDeGroteUnsklled

Just because a Window users something about Linux like they are experts in Linux, that is not always true. You have already run into that.

As for me, I have seen on some forums, not this site's forums, where some Windows users like to bash Linux saying if you are not a power user, it is hard to use Linux because you have to use the command line Terminal to do things in Linux. I just keep my mouth shut because I know that person "just likes to hear themselves talk".

I am a non technical user when it comes to using linux distros which means I know enough about the linux distros I am experimenting with not to get myself into trouble when using those distros. The linux distros I use on a regular daily basis, they are mostly using gui windows.

I use the linux Terminal "sparingly" like I did with the HP laptop I recently purchased where I installed Debian on and the time zone would not work even though the correct time zone (America/Chicago) should have. So I had to do some quick research and come up with a different solution (US/Central) which had to be done with the commands using the Terminal.

If a power user strictly likes a command line distro, then Arch linux is for them. If one wants to play around with Arch and they are not a power user, run into problems and they go into the Arch forums for help, they will be told that Arch is not for them and try a different distro. Help will not be easily forthcoming if at all.

[Moonchild]

Then when I told them the whole truth, they said, "but it's still based on Linux". The much vaster availability of apps on macOS confirms that this statement is oh so untrue. This question isn't opinion-based; it's fact-based.

Not intending to create bias here, but it was a Windows user who told me that macOS is Linux-based.

MacOS (X and later) are based on Darwin, which is based on BSD, which is a UNIX-like OS, just like Linux. There are a lot more parallels between Linux and Darwin than there are between Windows and Darwin. With most people only knowing Linux as the family of UNIX-like environments in use today, you can't really blame them for that statement. Purists would also argue that Linux isn't an OS, as it's just the kernel, and it should be addressed as GNU/Linux, so there's that too, and you can't just call it "Linux" the same way you can't call Darwin "Linux". It gets muddy quick, and you shouldn't blame people for a pretty decent approximation if they don't know all the intricacies.

But, there's a good point to be made here: throw enough effort at a UNIX-like environment and you can make it fully GUI-based, stable and consistent across releases. But that can only happen if you are product-focused, not philosophy-focused.

[BloxDeGroteUnsklled]

Is it possible to throw enough effort into a Linux environment and make it run macOS dmg and mac apps if we tried, and make our distro's UI also resemble macOS? Although pearOS and elementaryOS aren't too bad at replicating the GUI, they can't run mac dmgs, something ravynOS (a BSD OS) can do.

[RealityRipple]

If a power user strictly likes a command line distro, then Arch linux is for them. If one wants to play around with Arch and they are not a power user, run into problems and they go into the Arch forums for help, they will be told that Arch is not for them and try a different distro. Help will not be easily forthcoming if at all.

Arch makes breaking changes in their packages. All the time. It's the most unprofessional popular distro there is. If you don't update religiously, within the few days' timeframe they think is sufficient for an upgrade path, you might as well not exist.

[Thad E G]

It's pretty simple. A command-line tool will usually give you more options but is like a swiss army knife/multi-tool. More than you'd need. If all you need is a knife, a "simplified" knife will do just fine, instead. Most users just need a knife: install/uninstall/reinstall.

Indeed. But there are easy knives, not too sharp, with safe, rounded tips, and there are multi-tool knives, and synaptic is much closer to the latter. The Debian/Ubuntu family of Linux (actually the only one I've used) is a bit complex for software installation/management. Beginning with there being two (at least?) command families on the CLI. Synaptic can probably do it all. I don't know. It does, mostly, what I want to do. I have to resort to the CLI to upgrade one essential application (darktable) because synaptic thinks my upgrade from the development branch is a downgrade. I could probably find out the way around it, but it is far easier just to use the bash memory remind myself of the command I used last time and just change the file name.

Then there is personal taste. I have always used media players that play music rather than trying to be combined media managers and magazines. It's nice to see the album art; it's nice if it can show me the lyrics, but any more I do not want. I feel the same about admin tools.

Moving on, it would not surprise me at all if a lot of Linux users, let alone Win/Mac users, know very little about its history. Linux has been around for more than one generation now: lots of people may never even have heard of Unix, the Granddaddy of Linux/Unix-like systems. They won't know that even their Android phones belong to that lineage. They don't know that Gnu-is-Not-Unix is actually the greater part of what we all, in day-to-day talk, call "Linux." They won't know that, apart from the few changed names and Linux-distro specifics, they could refer to the Unix man pages for much of the command-line stuff.

They won't know about those great geniuses at AT&T that developed Unix as a side project; they won't know about the birth of the C programming language and the subsequent possibility to of porting Unix to multiple platforms. They won't know that thos guys laid the foundation of much of today's life. And they won't have any idea how crippled and awful MS's stuff was in the face of a fully functioning multi-user, multi-tasking system.

I waffle. Please excuse!

[Night Wing]

Arch makes breaking changes in their packages. All the time. It's the most unprofessional popular distro there is. If you don't update religiously, within the few days' timeframe they think is sufficient for an upgrade path, you might as well not exist.

Arch is too "bleeding edge" for me when it comes to updating new programs when the update (or updates) breaks something. I do not have the correct knowledge to fix the problem.

I remember when I first tried Manjaro which is an Arch based distro (if it still is an Arch based distro). The AUR was constantly updating and it was breaking packages on a frequent basis. This is when I dropped Manjaro and never went back to it since that time. This is also why I am leery of experimenting with other Arch based distros.

[Moonchild]

Someone should make a "difficulty map" of main Linux distros sometime, with Gentoo/Arch on the "Hard" end and things like Mint on the "Easy" end... To try and at least make some sense of the jungle that is distros. That would help users more easily pick a distro most aligned with their tech level/tinkering level/computer literacy.

[Gemmaugr]

Someone should make a "difficulty map" of main Linux distros sometime, with Gentoo/Arch on the "Hard" end and things like Mint on the "Easy" end... To try and at least make some sense of the jungle that is distros. That would help users more easily pick a distro most aligned with their tech level/tinkering level/computer literacy.

Sort of like https://eylenburg.github.io/linux_comparison.htm ?

[frostknight]

MacOS (X and later) are based on Darwin, which is based on BSD, which is a UNIX-like OS, just like Linux

Yes, you are correct, DarwinBSD which is based on FreeBSD is what MacOS X is based on.

Someone should make a "difficulty map" of main Linux distros sometime, with Gentoo/Arch on the "Hard" end and things like Mint on the "Easy" end... To try and at least make some sense of the jungle that is distros. That would help users more easily pick a distro most aligned with their tech level/tinkering level/computer literacy.

Pity too, because Arch has in my opinion a good package manager. Hyperbola uses pacman also. But alas, arch breaks way too much and requires you to be constantly aware of new upgrades and/or problems that are run into.

Arch therefore and gentoo are hard for sure
Debian/Devuan would be middle level

ubuntu/linux mint are likely beginner

That much make sense to me. Oh and Zorin is also beginner. Might even be easier than ubuntu although mint is also easier than ubuntu I have heard.

[Night Wing]

Someone should make a "difficulty map" of main Linux distros sometime, with Gentoo/Arch on the "Hard" end and things like Mint on the "Easy" end... To try and at least make some sense of the jungle that is distros.

Sort of like https://eylenburg.github.io/linux_comparison.htm ?

I wonder why the Debian distro was listed as "Advanced" on that page in the link above? I use Debian. Started with version 12.2 and I am now on version (12.10). Debian is very stable and I think it's stability is due to the older programs/packages in it. I have never had Debian break because of an update.

MX Linux is Debian based and gets many more updates on a weekly basis than Debian does. Mint is based on Ubuntu and does not get as many updates like MX does on a weekly basis. Speaking just for myself as a non-technical user, I find the Debian distro easy to work with.

[frostknight]

I wonder why the Debian distro was listed as "Advanced" on that page in the link above? I use Debian. Started with version 12.2 and I am now on version (12.10). Debian is very stable and I think it's stability is due to the older programs/packages in it. I have never had Debian break because of an update.

Off-topic:
I started with fedora 19 but I eventually quit using fedora although I did go back and forth between distros for a while.

sometime in 2018 I settled mostly on Hyperbola though

Debian isn't hard, but its not nearly as easy as ubuntu to install. Same as mint.

This being said, debian is supposedly mega stable compared to ubuntu based stuff.

Although I prefer devuan to debian because simplicity is more devuan then debian. Systemd is just too bloated to be secure and stable in my opinion. Also, poettering can be a hothead and so can the devs who work with him and their supporters. Their basic answer if there is a bad bug they don't want to bother with is to suck it if not enough people have said problem.

[Night Wing]

Off-topic:
Debian isn't hard, but its not nearly as easy as ubuntu to install. Same as mint.

There are two methods to install Debian. The regular way which I think the power users use does NOT include the "live" version where you can play with Debian, but not install it. And installing Debian this way can be confusing. This method I think is what you were alluding too. I do not use this method.

The "live" version uses the Calamares installer and this is the EASY way to install Debian just like in Mint or Ubuntu. And I use this EASY method when I installed Debian 12 with the Xfce desktop environment. Just look at the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd1uFBZbe8w&t

[frostknight]

The "live" version uses the Calamares installer and this is the EASY way to install Debian just like in Mint or Ubuntu. And I use this EASY method when I installed Debian 12 with the Xfce desktop environment. Just look at the video below.

I don't do that, so yeah... that explains a lot.

Maybe it would be easier to install with the calamare's method. Although isn't calamare's more buggy? Or am I wrong.

[Night Wing]

I use the "live" versions of any linux distro which uses this easy method. Once I get to the "live" Desktop and click the "Install" button, from start to finish it takes me about three minutes of time to complete the installer and then I reboot after installation.

It is safe and it is not buggy. Below is the link which will take you to a page where on the right side of the page, you will see the "live" version downloads for Gnome, Xfce, KDE, etc.

https://www.debian.org/distrib/

[frostknight]

Off-topic:
It is safe and it is not buggy. Below is the link which will take you to a page where on the right side of the page, you will see the "live" version downloads for Gnome, Xfce, KDE, etc.

https://www.debian.org/distrib/

I guess because most of my hardware has coreboot/libreboot, I stopped bothering with live because I was sure it would function correctly.[/offtopic]

[mr tribute]

The problem (not just for Linux, but maybe especially for Linux because it doesn't come preinstalled and has a fragmented ecosystem) is that hardware and software are becoming increasingly complex. I would say that things have become so complex that each human only understands a tiny fraction of computer hardware and software. I don't envy kids that grow up today, because the complexity is just overwhelming.

For non-geeks that don't dedicate all their free time to for example Linux (but could also be applied to Windows and Android to a lesser extent) it can be too much to handle. Even for devs there are too many variables to account for. I would like to argue that complexity is killing both hardware and software and alienating both developers and users.

In Linux today there exists GUIs for most things and that hasn't always been the case. Despite this desktop Linux has become more and more complicated under the hood.

Compared to 15 years ago we now have to deal with:
UEFI and possibly Secure Boot
Several init systems
Two incompatible display systems
Many desktop environments, not just Gnome and KDE
Many toolkits, not just gtk and Qt, but many versions at the same time
AppImages, Flatpaks and Snaps

Linux complexity that already existed 15 years ago:
Multiple native package formats and distros

I would say things could be much worse, but we are close to a situation where people just raise their hands and give up in front of a wall of complexity.

[Night Wing]

@ mr tribute

When it comes to Linux distros. With me being a non-technical person, I do not like to make (create) problems for myself. I've experimented with the different desktop environments of Cinnnamon, Mate, Xfce, KDE, Gnome, etc. Speaking just myself, I found Xfce the easiest to learn and work with whether in a "live" version or installed on bare metal.

Again, as an example. The HP ProBook 440 G8. When I bought it from a customer at the computer repair shop, it was installed with 64 bit Windows 11 Pro. After installing Debian 12.10 on it, the time zone was off. I had to fix it using the Terminal with the commands I found from Google.

As for UEFI and Secure Boot. On this ProBook, it came with UEFI and Secure Boot. There was "no" Legacy settings. I am not a power user. I found on this laptop, in order to install Debian, I had to "disable" Secure Boot. Basically, I learned about many different linux distros by the old fashioned method of "trial and error".

I also use AppImages, but I do "not" use Flatpaks or Snaps. I also like installing things using .deb files too. Just my personal preference from my experimentation. One one tend to think since I am not a power user in Linux, I would be the one to "raise my hands and give up in front of a wall of complexity". But I do not. For me, the wall of complexity was with the Windows operating system.

Since late 2012 (October) when I went the Linux way, I have found I liked tinkering with Linux distros more than I liked tinkering with the Windows operating system. I guess I am an enigma (or oddity) in this respect.

Since there are many different Linux distros; that is their strength, in my opinion, instead of their weakness. If someone does like a Linux distro, someone can choose a different distro to learn and "see if it is for them".

With the Windows operating system; if one does not like Windows 11, but does not like Linux or the Apple (OS) and they do not want to go the Linux or Apple route as an alternative to Windows, then they just have to "grin and bear it" and stay with Windows 11 which they are not fond of.