189
Is Linux (dumb)user friendly yet?
(lemmy.ca)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
189 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
48179 readers
1039 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
Yes. Linux has become more user-friendly than Windows. Things stay were they are so it is reliable. It doesn't serve ads nor spies on the user so it is ethical. When updating one sees exactly what happens, and one can have perfect manual control of updates if one wants to. That and so much more.
Sidenote, perhaps consider using Vivaldi browser as it is superior for now, pre Manifest V3. However, if one wants to keep using uBlock Origin indefinitely regardless of the Manifest V3 transition, use LibreWolf which ships with uBlock Origin by default.
Over the years I went from Linux Mint to Xubuntu to EndeavourOS, and from desktop environment Xfce to KDE Plasma. To beginners who absolutely want the least amount of updates and don't mind older software versions I'd suggest a Debian based distribution, and to everyone else I'd suggest an Arch-based distribution, specifically EndeavourOS, or Manjaro if one cannot install the former for some reason, but both are fine. Why? I like to update as soon as possible and to have access to most software without it being a hassle to install. Moreover, Arch has a ridiculously comprehensive wiki which most of the time has the answer to one's problem.
KDE Plasma over Xfce because it's a remarkably configurable feature-rich powerhouse, but I honestly feel bad and wish I could merge them both. If old machines feel too slow for the former, the choice would be Xfce in a heartbeat because it is fast, minimalistic, and also highly configurable.
I moved away from the aforementioned Debian/Ubuntu based distributions because Mint was too bloated and slow for my taste. Specifically, as a former gamer I am highly sensitive to the responsiveness of the cursor, therefore the move to Xubuntu with Xfce where the mouse movement felt snappy again. Unfortunately Snap packages came to both which caused more problems than it solved, so I moved to Arch-based distributions and never looked back.
TL;DR: if new computers did not come with Windows pre-installed—the absurdity of this monopoly remains mind blowing—Linux would be significantly more pleasant to use for most of the populace. I bet my life on that.