[mft_]

Or maybe the operating system should just work reliably for (at least) the basics? Or if it can’t, at least give an indication why?

Blaming a new user like this is one of the cultural reasons why the ‘year of the Linux desktop’ has always been n+1.

[conz]

Re: "Or maybe the operating system should just work reliably for (at least) the basics?"

So, out of curiosity, if I tried installing MacOS on any of the 15+ computers I have at home, what are the likely chances that this "operating system should just work reliably for (at least) the basics?"

I can tell you that my success rate with Linux is 100%.

[mft_]

I’m not especially speaking for MacOS, but to your question, I suspect if you tried to install an appropriate version of MacOS on Mac hardware, you’d have very close to a 100% success rate. That’s certainly my past experience with Mac and, FWIW, Windows too.

Anyway, my point wasn’t that Linux should be perfect; but that if it can’t be, maybe give some help why, and more experienced users shouldn’t just jump to blaming the struggling newbie.

The key is this: if you want Linux to win with non-experts, it needs to target being a better experience for non-experts than the alternatives, to justify the effort of changing.

[conz]

Re: "if you want Linux to win with non-experts, it needs to target being a better experience for non-experts than the alternatives"

I agree in broad terms, but let me re-capitulate this. Which OS do you think would offer a better experience for non-experts when installing on bare-metal? By my reckoning, Windows is a nightmare to install afresh on random hardware, and MacOS wont work on most-all random hardware. Users think that Windows is easier because they almost never have to install it from scratch.

Also, do you factor in the ever-increasing nuisances (AI, ads, spyware)[0][1][2][4] that Microsoft and Apple are injecting into their operating systems, and the move towards digital sovereignty which is accelerating in every nation outside of the US in any computation of what is a 'better experience'?

[0]https://au.pcmag.com/migrated-15175-windows-10/104927/micros... [1]https://www.techradar.com/news/is-windows-11-spying-on-you-n... [2]https://www.itnews.com.au/news/apple-delays-image-scanning-f... [4]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/microslop-infuriat...

[mft_]

> I agree in broad terms, but let me re-capitulate this. Which OS do you think would offer a better experience for non-experts when installing on bare-metal? By my reckoning, Windows is a nightmare to install afresh on random hardware, and MacOS wont work on most-all random hardware. Users think that Windows is easier because they almost never have to install it from scratch.

I've done multiple installs of every Windows (except 8) Windows since the NT4 era, and multiple installs of OS X over the last decade. They have almost always been straightforward and successful, unless I've complicated things with weird partition/dual boot requirements. (OS X isn't really a fair comparison, as the target hardware is so hugely restricted.)

----

Aside from the initial installation 'just working' (which I accept might not be dramatically different with Linux, these days, and indeed, I accept that Windows often needs additional drivers downloading, depending on your system.) there's another big factor to consider.

With Windows and OS X there's a long-established concept (at least, prior to the app store era) that if you want to install something, you download a file and run it. This applies whether it's drivers or software, and >95% of the time also provides a simple uninstall path. Even my elderly mother can grok this.

With Linux, this is my recent journey: Must I use APT or APT-GET? Flatpack? Snap? Or can I use the built-in Software Manager (FWIW, I really like the one in Mint, except when stuff isn't available on it.) Oh, so some software (Mullvad, Blender, etc.) I need to download manually? I've installed Mint; am I on a Debian system? Okay, I'll download the DEB, but then how to install that? (Oh, it failed - open-whispr). For other things, we must download an Appimage and make it executable - great, that works, but it doesn't have an install feature, so how to install it somewhere so that it's not forever sitting in Downloads? Huh, okay, I can figure that out, but it's a pain. Oh, wait, some of those self-contained files I've downloaded will run directly from file manager, but for some reason fail silently via the start menu link I've just made. Okay, better trouble-shoot that tomorrow...

(For brevity, I've left out that at every stage, there were multiple web searches to find instructions for the correct approach, diving into all manner of forums, Stack Overflow posts, and Github repositories. And I've left out the more esoteric stuff, like slowing down touchpad scrolling via obscure command-line incantations.)

This is the reality of setting up a simple Linux system with (what is reputed to be) one of the most user-friendly distros there is.

And which is why, if the goal is Linux 'winning' on the desktop (beyond committed nerds) there's still quite some way to go on UX.

> Also, do you factor in the ever-increasing nuisances (AI, ads, spyware)[0][1][2][4] that Microsoft and Apple are injecting into their operating systems, and the move towards digital sovereignty which is accelerating in every nation outside of the US in any computation of what is a 'better experience'?

Totally with you, 100% - that's why I'm experimenting with a full shift to Linux myself. But this only applies to relative nerds. Many/most non-expert users don't know or care about such things.

[conz]

Re: "Or can I use the built-in Software Manager (FWIW, I really like the one in Mint, except when stuff isn't available on it.)"

I think this (built-in Software Manager) is probably the right track for most normal users. Last time I checked, the Debian software repo had over 120,000 packages, so for most normal users, the bulk of what they need is likely there and thus likely easier to install than apps on MacOS or Windows. My usual track record for installing a new desktop for family members, including the top 100 apps they likely need, is under 30 minutes for Linux. The last time I tried this with Windows, it took days of effort and frustration and to some extent opened the computer up to security risks because of the multitude of binary sources I had to trust.

But yes, once you start needing specialist software, then your-mileage-may-vary. Having said that, apps like Blender are already in the Ubuntu repo, which should mean they are also in the Mint Software Manager, and thus a single-click away from installation.

In general, I would consider Linux to be the easiest platform to install software on for the most common 80% of the software that normal users need. It's certainly the easiest to maintain and update that commonly used software of any of the mainstream desktop OSes.

Again, I think a lot of the mismatch of norms & experiences comes down to what someone becomes accustomed to. If you're accustomed to downloading an installation binary (EXE/MSI) and double-clicking that to install on Windows, then you can become accustomed to downloading an installation binary (DEB/RPM) and double-clicking that to install on Linux (viz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOPQPrzmnw0).

Cheers.

[cromka]

You can't just come to Linux and forget about the distinction between free and proprietary software.

[sagarm]

I tried a clean install of Windows on a lunar lake laptop and it couldn't even find the disk. This is a device that ships with Windows!

It's just not feasible to have 100% out of the box hardware compatibility.