I think it’s a fair point that immutable distros are still a developing concept and probably not ready for primetime, but I do feel that eventually this must be the answer to make things absolutely bulletproof for people (of which there are many) who have a natural ability of nuking their OS.
Why would it have to be KDE or XFCE? GNOME as it exists today is probably the closest to macOS’ design language, and whatever you do designing any kind of operating system UI, macOS needs to be the benchmark. GNOME 2 in the olden days was my favorite DE so today I have to go for things like KDE or MATE but I’m not a novice and I can fully acknowledge that what works for me isn’t what works for everyone. GNOME probably made the right decisions to lower the entry barrier towards Linux.
XFCE to me is purely a choice for outdated hardware so unless your extreme beginner has an extremely old PC XFCE is a non-starter. Whether KDE can be made more accessible to the non-initiated I can’t say. Anything that has a Windows-esque taskbar is probably ill-equipped from the start as well. Again, macOS is as easy to use in a keyboard and mouse sense as tablets and smartphones are with our fingers. This is the way.
This is the only take based in reality. Nobody (except us) cares about openness, federation or business models. What matters are ease of use and adoption.
Of course that doesn’t mean that the other takes are missing the mark in terms of history possibly repeating itself in the future. But if it does, that just means that (as is to be expected) the people don’t make momentary decisions with a bigger (collective) picture in mind. Design needs to address individual needs first and foremost especially when it comes to social media.
Nobody joins a platform to beat corporate ownership of people’s digital lives. BlueSky manufactured adoption by starting out as an invite-only cool kids club. Having to pick a fediverse instance is an entry barrier. There will always be a lot less money to throw around when you’re trying to create something under the umbrella of freedom and openness. I don’t see how these movements could ever win, even if they provide an arguably better product.
World hunger can’t be cured for profit. The hunger of the many is directly caused by the greed of the few.
But I’d love to see them try of course. The billions Musk has evaporated with his purchase could’ve also been spent less egotistically.
Windows can definitely be a nuisance these days especially during the setup. But you mention a key aspect at the end. Touch-based devices these days are super intuitive compared to what we’ve grown accustomed to on our desktops for decades. And they aren’t just miniature PCs anymore, they can do all the same stuff, regardless of whether they’re actually being used for the same things we associate with desktop-work.
Linux has a huge userbase in the form of Android and therein virtually no entry-barrier or learning-curve to speak of. I feel that that’s where we need to go. Mac OS is already there. Windows is just living and breathing off the fact that its market share was once virtually 100%. I think a good example of what I mean is how Valve are leveraging Linux on their Steam Deck. It’s still intimidating when you switch over to the KDE desktop, but as a regular user gamer you won’t ever need to. Everything this device has been built to do can be done in a tailor-made UI for its purpose. Or think ChromeOS. I can install a virtual Debian beneath ChromeOS if I want more control over what I can install but other than that the OS is dead simple to use.
Linux deserves mass adoption but it needs to think user experience first just like the big corporations do. I firmly believe that that’s possible even when the big bucks aren’t being thrown around.
I have a middle aged customer who is legitimately using Mint on one of those old Athlons today in 2024 for her day to day. There literally is no reason for her to upgrade hardware unless her usecases evolve into something more demanding.
I agree Linux is a lot more accessible than it used to be, but if I understand you correctly the people you helped transition still needed at least some initial holding of their hands. If for example you buy a laptop with Linux preinstalled that initial hurdle could be cleared but I still believe there’s a learning curve at least as steep as it would be for someone learning Windows for the first time. The difference being that everything out there takes Windows into account.
If you just wana surf the web Linux can probably be as easy as ChromeOS these days but that isn’t really a usecase where operating systems can make a difference one way or the other.
Is that an Enterprise version at work? I mean even if you pause updates for as long as they allow you to on consumer versions, at some point you do have to do it. I do get nagged on one of my installations but not on my main one. Both Windows 10.
I was planning to transition to Linux completely by this autumn but laziness strikes as per. I guess autumn 2025 is the new deadline now.
I didn’t understand the “forced upgrade” argument until now. Yea I guess you’re right, at some point you have to do updates (they nag about upgrading to 11 but you can skip that indefinitely). But with how popular Windows is you have options for a lot of problems (including forced updates which to be fair shouldn’t be ignored when it comes to security patches).
If you open up Chris Titus Tech’s Windows Utility (https://christitus.com/windows-tool/) you basically have a comprehensive list of all the ameliorations one could ever want at their disposal. That’s really the main thing Windows still has going for it, it’s a decades-long mainstay which means there are plenty of knowledgable people out there who know how it can be made to heel even if Microsoft decide to force a Microsoft account on you, telemetry, whatever it may be, there will probably always be a way around it.
For example one of my main gripes with Windows 11 is how you can’t make the taskbar show all tray icons anymore by default. They removed window titles in the taskbar so now everything is basically a square down there meaning there’s all this empty space between my open windows and the tray. But of course someone out there has written a program to automatically unhide all tray icons and thrown it on GitHub.
To me personally it doesn’t matter how crappy the design choices are as long as they can be mitigated. If bad corporate decisionmaking is a dealbreaker (which is also a fair assessment) then you have to ditch the corporation entirely and go Linux or what have you. Not trying to be smart or anything but there really is no reason to stay on Windows left anymore. Maybe if you absolutely need Microsoft Office or something but ever since Proton came out the issue with Windows-only games has pretty much evaporated.
Switching to Linux without prior experience will challenge even the most tech-savvy, but it’s an investment worth making many times over.
Can’t argue with that flawless logic.
Does that mean you weren’t able to implement those changes or didn’t want to regress back from Wayland?
Point being that OP must’ve installed Windows before and therefore should be able to build a computer hardware-wise?
Absolutely. Anything can be learned and unless things build on top of each other you can’t really compare difficulties.
What downsides though right? “We” object to Ubuntu over matters like Canonical being a for-profit company or their choice of Desktop Environment. At the end of the day, who cares? If it works it works, right?
It’s an interesting angle, the hostility thing. People in the know have largely fallen out of love with Ubuntu but imho that’s not necessarily because Ubuntu fell in quality but just because so many “better” things have come up since Ubuntu 04.10. It is definitely a sound choice for non-techy people, maybe more than ever. Personally I’d prefer (almost) any contemporary desktop over Gnome these days, but I can definitely see the appeal for others in terms of simple design language.
Basically you can turn any old laptop into a Chromebook these days using Linux, and most people just like your parents most definitely do not need more than a functional webbrowser. Basically a smartphone with a larger screen and physical keyboard. Even if you don’t care about your privacy (or freedom from notification-spam) why still pay the Microsoft-tax.
Which are about as related as the knowledge required to mount drywall and the knowledge required to run a ham radio station. You tell me which is more complicated but either way there are most certainly radio amateurs out there that don’t know the first thing about handywork and handymen that could barely find the on-off switch on a broadcast-rig.
Yes @[email protected] please save yourself dozens of future headaches by listening to this person.
Found the sister.
They often say it’s the oldest business in the world. Which might not be relevant to how we should treat it as a society today, but what seems obvious to me is that when you de-facto criminalize and discourage something the working conditions are going to suffer.
There probably isn’t a place in the world where it isn’t practiced yet we love to pretend like we’re somehow past that. Not sure how much of that is based in religion and how much is just us being in denial of our own biology-based desires in a secular modern society. Either way it is hurting people who are just as entitled to making a living as anybody else.
Not the guy you’re asking but I agree. There would be no need for Falcon Sensor on every Windows-machine deployed inside an Enterprise (assuming that Falcon Sensor serves a purpose worth fulfilling in the first place) if the critical devices on their network were sufficiently hardened. The main problem (presumably the basis of such a solution existing) is that as soon as you have a human factor, people who must be able to access critical infrastructure as part of their job, there will be breakages of some kind. Not all of those must be malicioius or grow into an external threat. They still need to be averted of course.
I feel that CrowdStrike is an idea that seems appealing to those making technological decisions because it promises something that cannot be done by conventional means as we have known and deployed them before. I can’t say whether or how often this promise has ever enabled companies to thwart attacks at their inception, but again, I feel that in a sufficiently hardened environment, even with compromisable human actors in play, you do not need self-surveillance (at the deepest level of an OS) to this extent.
And to also address OP’s question: of course there is no need for this in a *NIX environment. There hasn’t been any significant need for antivirus of any kind in any of the UNIX-based world including macOS. So really this isn’t about whether an anti-malware solution in itself can satisfy the needs of a company per se, the requirements very much follow the potential attack vectors that are opened up by an existing infrastructure. In other words, when your environment is Windows-based, you are bound to deploy more extensive security countermeasures. Because they are necessary.
Some may say that this is due to market-share, but to those I say, has the risk-profile of running a Linux-based server changed over the last 20 years? They certainly have become a lot more common in that timeframe. One example I can think of was a ransomware exploit on a Linux-based NAS-brand, I think it was QNAP. This isn’t a holier than thou argument. Any system can be compromised. Period. The only thing you can ensure is that the necessary investment to break your system will always be higher than the potential gain. So I guess another way to put this is that in a Windows-based environment your own investment into ensuring said fact will always be higher.
But don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to say Windows needs to be removed from the desks of office-workers. Really this failure and all these photographs of publically visible bluescreens (and all the ones in datacenters and server-rooms that we didn’t see) shows that Windows has way too strong of a foothold in places where plenty smart people are employed to find solutions that best serve the interests of their employers, including interests (i.e. security and privacy) that they are unaware of because they can’t be printed on a balance-sheet.
To me it’s like the old saying from Win9x days “Help, I’ve deleted the internet”. Removing an Internet Explorer shortcut from the desktop might be easier than nuking a Linux installation, but I think if the point is to be of service to absolute tech-illiterates then you need to be ready for anything, any edge case. And like you say, if Flatpaks and all that just work then what would be the downside of immutability?
I mean in theory one can make deep-rooted changes to macOS, but I haven’t once seen it fail to upgrade successfully. And I definitely wouldn’t consider Windows immutable with how many things can go wrong in practice. I’ve had more than a few customers who lost wifi drivers through no fault of their own, in one case the entire device wasn’t visible anymore, so reinstalling a driver wouldn’t have done anything, all I could do was roll back the feature update and ensure it won’t install it again. In that sense, immutable Linux might even be the best offering out there today. The only thing it lacks (besides Android and SteamOS) is a multi-billion dollar company backing it for wider desktop adoption.