Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

4

[deleted] wrote (edited )

10

josefStallman wrote

I'm a tad biased, but I want to bring up a couple things.

Most distros designed for new users are shit. Mint is bad, Zorin is bad, elementary is bad. They try way too hard to be Windows when they're not Windows. Even if their goal isn't too look like Windows, most "beginner" distros fail to take advantage of the fantastic user-friendliness that Linux can provide if configured correctly. Their goal is to be a drop-in replacement for an OS that a user is used to, and they all fail.

If you want a really good distro for people who are uncomfortable using a terminal, check out an enterprise-focused distro. openSUSE Leap and Fedora are the best examples of this. They both come with a wealth of excellent graphical configuration options (YaST specifically), on top of an impressively polished overall user experience. I think they both come with Gnome by default, but Plasma looks really solid and modern these days and is just a couple clicks to install (not to say gnome can't look good with a lot of work, but out of the box Plasma is much better).

My best reccomendation would have to be Korora. It's based on Fedora with a couple tweaks for regular users who don't care that much about 100% of their software being free.

I've been using Fedora for almost 6 months now, and I've never had an instance where I have to open a terminal. I've used terminals plenty, because I really like using terminals, but you never have to. If you embrace the terminal, I find it makes doing a lot of things a lot easier, but if you don't want to, you genuinely don't have to.

6

ziq wrote

https://neon.kde.org/

Beats the UIs on both those OS's IMO.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

josefStallman wrote

KDE Neon uses the KDE Plasma desktop environment, you can find a ton of examples through whatever search engine you use.

2

NEOalquimista wrote (edited )

Distrowatch Gallery, but it's not the best place (these are outdated images). You'll find more beautiful screenshots in the community forums where distros have a "show your desktop" thread. I don't know about KDE neon, though.

KDE Plasma is similar to Windows, but allows customizing at a greater depth. Any detail, no matter how small a change it is, will probably be possible, and all done through the KDE settings. It abuses on transparency and slide effects for its GUI, and promotes full featured applications with high configurability, such as video editor Kdenlive, Krita and others.

KDE's goal is to allow you to do anything without resorting to solutions that only interest advanced users. In other words, its graphical interface will provide you options for anything. It seeks to add features in a "one size fits all" philosophy, same as Windows.

Compared to KDE Plasma, GNOME seeks simplicity, as in not adding a feature if it's not a very common task. It keeps things clean, while focusing on doing what it does very well. Its logo is a feet, which means human. Tries to keep things simple, human, intuitive. Some may not agree.

Things used to be more "binary". KDE or GNOME? It was a simple choice. But now we have environments like Budgie, MATE, Cinnamon and many new ones. Each tries to fill the gaps GNOME or KDE has, they try an alternate way.

2

jadedctrl wrote

You know, I'm a tad biased (mod of /f/lignux, jajaja, so of course I'm a shill) and I haven't used Windows since 8 and have only used macOS briefly:
GNU/Linux is pretty user-friendly, and depending on the distro, you won't have to touch the terminal. I've found, in most of my time as a GNU/Linux user, things Just Work™. In fact, for the first year or two I used it (Ubuntu, of course) I never touched the terminal-- at some point, though, I was curious and wanted to try it.
When it comes to UI, GNU/Linux is... OK at consistency. About as good at is as Windows. Windows has different UIs, even in their bloody system software-- one program is Metro-style, another classic desktop, and some Windows programs (despite being modern) strangely are only 98-style.
GNU/Linux has a similar issue to Windows there, I'd say, although it isn't quite as severe. The two majour camps you'll notice are the "GNOME-style" apps and the GTK2/QT apps. The "GNOME-style" (technically GTK3+) have a unified menu-bar and title-bar, kind of like macOS has started doing recently. The GTK2/QT apps have seperated title and menu-bars. This difference is slightly annoying, IMO, but the themes in most distros make this disrepency still look pretty cohesive. The difference isn't too bad-- it's better than the Windows desktop/Metro/retro inconsistency.
As far as UI looks, you really should take a look at the GNOME desktop environment video. Personally, I think it looks better than macOS and Windows (8 or 10). It all comes down to taste, though.

4

kaiakerno wrote

Really the only serious reason for me now is games. That, and having to maintain two separate systems for different things. I can't (won't) limit myself to smaller selection of games, and it's just uncomfortable switching between systems whenever I need to switch activity.

There was a period of time when I was disappointed in Linux because it was harder to set up than it should be and easy to break. I think it's passing now, and I'm considering to give Linux another shot and install a dual-boot, even despite the nuisance of rebooting often.

3

Cosine wrote (edited )

I anticipated dual-boot being very inconvenient, but, having dual-booted Windows and Linux for about a year now, I surprisingly found it unbelievably easy.

I have exclusively games on Windows, and everything else on Linux. I have yet to find something other than games that doesn't work for me on Linux.

Since gaming usually takes place consecutively (for me) over a few hours, I am able to boot to windows (as simple as win+alt+w, I set up) and wait 15 seconds. To go back, another 15 seconds to reboot. Since gaming generally is one application and saving is built-in, I never have to worry about saving everything before "losing progress" or the like.

1

zorblax wrote

Yeah, I ran a pirated windows install on my machine for a while, but they ported every game I really care about to linux so I just deleted the partition. Dual-booting is a pain.

2

alqm wrote (edited )

Dual booting makes me less dedicated to learning. Windows makes me wanna play all games all day and never boot back to Linux. So my number one rule at home is to never have a Windows install.

2

Crassula wrote

I really want to use Linux. I have a macbook that I bought back in 2009 that now can't run the latest OS from Apple due to being unsupported, so I will probably make the switch some day soon, though I really like using Photoshop and Indesign so maybe I will just dual-boot so I can use that software offline but use linux for general browsing. I don't really want to get new hardware if I can avoid it.

2

Mance wrote

Because I code and make money writing applications in xcode for ios, and to my knowledge xcode does not run on any linux platform.

2

Volt wrote

My Mac just werks™.

  • Drivers are solid
  • Small conveniences like Time Machine
  • BSD userland
  • Tasteful design all around
  • BeOS is dead

I don't have a problem with Linux, but Mac OS X has basically the most comfortable and consistent desktop environment around today. Apple is always breaking shit, but then again everyone else does that too.

2

moon_princess wrote

Work software that only has a Windows version and doesn't play well with Wine.

My second computer runs linux and if I ever stop needing to use said software I will probably dump Windows from my main one too, or at least just relegate it to a second partition.

2

bananaguardian wrote

I was given a MacBook through work years ago, and unfortunately it runs any distro I've thrown at it so poorly because of the graphics chip that I switch back after a month. If this thing ever dies I'm planning to grab something that will run it better.

3

alqm wrote

In case you're not aware, Dell is being very friendly to Linux. I have a Dell Inspiron running Debian and another Dell Inspiron running Fedora. The latter came with Ubuntu pre-installed.

1

hentai wrote

I don't run it because my organization won't allow me currently. I love Linux though and normally would use it.

1

AlanSmithy wrote

I’m a Mac user because my wife is a Mac user and we share an iMac. She works in UX and it’s pretty much an industry thing. That said, my laptop is a 7 year old Sager running Ubuntu Mate. It does what I need it to do.

1

23i wrote

mac-only apps such as notational velocity + not knowing the state of linux/bsd's HFS support, amongst other reasons.

0

emma wrote (edited )

BORN TO DIE

WORLD IS A FUCK

鬼神 Kill Em All 1989

I am trash man

410,757,864,530 DEAD COPS

1

alqm wrote

I read an article from a former Mac user that switched to Arch Linux and wrote his experience. I think you'll like it.

-2

tellurian wrote

Because the Linux kernel is the most hacked OS with the most vulnerabilities. https://www.cybrnow.com/10-most-vulnerable-os-of-2016/

2

zorblax wrote

My experience poking at windows internals tells me that it's a security clusterfuck. It's a miracle more of them aren't hacked.