[salviati]

> The reality is that for the vast majority of people, even the simplest desktop Linux distributions are simply too high a learning curve to be useful outside the very basics

I have decades of experience in being "the computer guy" with some friends and family. My reality is different. My reality is that people find Linux easier to use than Windows. In my reality people are not happy to see the UI change radically across versions. With Linux I can always find a DE that is similar to what they used to have (see cynnamon, for example).

> The problem is that when things go wrong, problems rapidly begin to require levels of knowledge far outside what a layperson can reasonably acquire

I have the opposite experience: I had some acquintances go through forum posts and apply the solutions suggested there, all on their own, to my great surprise. Instead, when someone says to me they have a problem with their Windows computer, I answer that they're too complicated: I don't know how to put my hands on them. If I search online it's very hard to wade through the vague suggestions, the "reinstall", "reboot" that never give you any additional knowledge after you've solved the problem. In my reality your sentence applies to Windows, not to Linux.

> A missing driver, updates that need to be installed, configuration problems - these all run rampant on Linux to degrees far beyond what one experiences with a machine designed for Windows.

What are you comparing? "A machine designed for windows" vs what? I believe you meant "windows". New hardware on Linux is way easier than Windows. New printer? You connect it and it just works. Wifi dongle? Same. The way you talk about it sounds like 1999 Linux to me.

> There is no legal or ethical reason not to just run Windows 11 on technically unsupported hardware to keep it alive. I think that's the best way to go.

My main reason is this: GNU/Linux is built for the user. You as the user are the master. Windows is built to extract value from people using computers. Sometimes they (Microsoft) decide you're not in charge; for instance when you tell the computer to shut down, and the computer replies with "I'm installing updates, don't shut me down". And maybe it's a laptop. And maybe I'm off to take a train, and I'm about to be late.

I even read that windows embeds ads. In the OS. How is this remotely acceptable?

I recently went to an open event where researchers were showing their work to people/kids, and I noticed how they all use windows. That made me sad. I think misinformation is the main thing holding Linux back. I believe you're believing and spreading misinformation in good faith.

[pjmlp]

> I even read that windows embeds ads. In the OS. How is this remotely acceptable?

The same way FOSS projects, and Linux distros happen to do, because they need the money.

https://github.com/standard/standard/issues/1381

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fw...

https://linuxiac.com/ubuntu-once-again-angered-users-by-plac...

[0xEF]

This is not an apples to apples comparison. A single line in my cli letting me know one of my Rails project dependencies is requesting funding is _far_ less intrusive than Windows throwing popup notifications at me about some game they want me to play even though I requested to stop showing me that ad.

FOSS needs money, yes, but it also respects the user and can in no reasonable way be compared to Microsoft's abuse of power without some serious cognitive dissonance.

[pjmlp]

Only the form changes, the goal is the same.

When FOSS does ads, respects the user, when big corp does ads, exploits the user.

[salviati]

I was referring to Microsoft selling ad space on your computer. Not them using it themselves. In this regard, it's different from what Canonical did.

I'm talking about choices that disrupt user productivity on their computers. Not choices that might annoy users who read each and every line in a 40 lines CLI output.

[pjmlp]

I don't see a difference, does Canonical themselves write the code for the software they do ads for?

Some people consider being annoyed every couple of 40 lines CLI output disruptive for their work.

[amlib]

All I can say is that I haven't seen a single AD in the last 15 years or so of using many different linux distros while as soon as I've booted any windows 10 or 11 machine, ADs were present everywhere and constantly reminded me that I'm the product.

[pjmlp]

So those links didn't happen.

[autoexec]

avoid Ubuntu and microsoft products (like windows or npm) and you should be fine

[pjmlp]

Like Github, VSCode and Typescript?

[ivraatiems]

I think one thing you might want to consider - and another commenter described a similar thing - is that I am not "the computer guy" for my customers. I am selling them a product. That product is a cheap computer. I will provide help when I can, but I don't offer long-term tech support.

But I also am not sure how to respond to things like:

> What are you comparing? "A machine designed for windows" vs what? I believe you meant "windows". New hardware on Linux is way easier than Windows. New printer? You connect it and it just works. Wifi dongle? Same. The way you talk about it sounds like 1999 Linux to me.

Except to say that almost always, I am selling machines that came with some version of Windows on them originally, so yes, they're designed for Windows.

> My main reason is this: GNU/Linux is built for the user. You as the user are the master. Windows is built to extract value from people using computers. Sometimes they (Microsoft) decide you're not in charge; for instance when you tell the computer to shut down, and the computer replies with "I'm installing updates, don't shut me down". And maybe it's a laptop. And maybe I'm off to take a train, and I'm about to be late.

> I even read that windows embeds ads. In the OS. How is this remotely acceptable?

You're completely right about all of this. And as an expert user, I have a Linux Mint desktop I use fairly often. I also have worked on my personal Windows machines to lock them down so they can't do most of this.

But as a business owner trying to sell machines to customers, I have to sell them what they want and will be comfortable using. Linux machines do not sell for as high a price, have a higher rate of returns and negative reviews, and are more overhead for me in terms of helping people with them - even after delivering a machine I have rigorously tested.

I can't solve for every problem at once. I am trying to save computers from the wastebin, and get my customers a reliable, inexpensive machine. Also trying to teach them to use Linux is just one too many steps in the end.

[salviati]

I agree 99% with you. I think you're doing the right thing installing Windows in your position.

BUT in my opinion the reason for this is not inherent in Linux or Windows.

It's the myth around them. The myth around windows is that it works. If it didn't, it would not be installed on most PCs on the planet, after all...

The myth around Linux is that it's difficult to use. Only expert people choose it, after all...

If a windows PC has a problem, the fact that it's Windows is last in the list of things to blame. If a Linux PC has a problem, it's he other way round.

...and don't get me started on the myth that Apple computers "just work". Sometimes they don't, just as everything that's not been engineered with NASA style of rigorous testing. And when they don't work, sure as hell you can't fix it yourself.

I've been told from a "Genius" in an Apple store that I should reboot my iPad once a week. I commented the OS was quite bad if it requires that. I'm used to be proud of my server uptime... (I know about kernel security updates, and I'm making a different point, that the kernel should not require you to reboot regularly). The "Genius" talking to me completely failed to understand my point, and insisted I "need to take care of it".

To summarize, I'm 99% with you, but that 1% of my opinion is that we need to dismantle a false myth. One bit at a time. Whenever we can.