is Linux's plethora of distro choices also its biggest barrier for entry?

[TheOnlyKirst]

basically the title. the more choice people have, the harder it gets to make a choice. do you think this makes sense?

[fuzz0r]

Usually people distro-hop for a bit until they find something suitable.

I know I did at least.

[NinJake]

What you say makes sense, but I think anyone considering using Linux means they're already past the technical hurdles of what they are looking for in an OS. So choices are a non-issue.

 

The biggest barrier for entry IMO is people not wanting to try out new things when they've grown so accustomed to microsoft/apple operating systems. Kids these days are learning computing on chromebooks so Google's OS might be up there as well.

[Lacrima]

It does, I swapped from Ubuntu to Kali to PopOS back to Ubuntu when I first started off

[TheOnlyKirst]

3 minutes ago, NinJake said:

people not wanting to try out new things when they've grown so accustomed to...

I think this could maybe fit under the same umbrella as my assumption, walking hand in hand,

 

could people using "I'm used to x" as an excuse to not have to go through the process of choosing, process which they might think is hard due to having too many choices?

kind of a "chicken and egg" scenario (even though the chicken and egg scenario was solved long ago, it was the egg that came first)

[TheGlenlivet]

I think so.

Swapping Operating systems is not something a casual(90% of computer users) will ever do and could scare them away.

Is linux harder than windows?  No, not anymore.  But most people just want it to work and the extra options and configurability can make that worse, not better.

[TheOnlyKirst]

9 minutes ago, ArdaBarda said:

It does, I swapped from Ubuntu to Kali to PopOS back to Ubuntu when I first started off

what made you go back to a distro you've discarded before?

[Lacrima]

4 minutes ago, TheOnlyKirst said:

what made you go back to a distro you've discarded before?

Was easier to follow guides with Ubuntu

[Master Disaster]

34 minutes ago, TheOnlyKirst said:

basically the title. the more choice people have, the harder it gets to make a choice. do you think this makes sense?

You're definitely not wrong but I don't think you're 100% correct either.

 

On the surface yes, many distros seemingly equates to much choice and possible confusion but the main issue most people face is trying to undo their Microsoft/Apple way of thinking.

 

There are only 3 main distros you really should care about, Debian, RHEL (more CentOS since RHEL is licensed) & Arch. Almost all of the biggest distros are based off one of these 3, once you learn all the differences which distro you choose comes down to what you want the most. Ease of use, stability or bleeding edge packages.

 

The problem is that users used to Windows or macOS don't realise you can pick any distro you want/like and change the parts of it you don't like for alternatives that you do. You should only be distro hopping while you find you're preferred base, once you've picked a base you can, quite literally, make it look, act and feel like almost anything. Don't like Gnome? Install Cinnamon or KDE. Want it to look and feel like Windows 10? A few hours theming and riceing and you got it. Want a different App Launcher? There's at least 5 to choose from. Heck you can go as far as pulling Systemd and replacing it with OpenRC if you want.

 

IMO the biggest barrier to entry for Linux is decades of closed source, proprietary software indoctrination. Microsoft and Apple want you used to their way because it means you'll keep using their products and making them money.

 

Linux is not Windows or macOS and people really need to understand this going in otherwise they'll have a really hard time and will probably end up going back pretty quickly.

 

19 minutes ago, TheGlenlivet said:

I think so.

Swapping Operating systems is not something a casual(90% of computer users) will ever do and could scare them away.

Is linux harder than windows?  No, not anymore.  But most people just want it to work and the extra options and configurability can make that worse, not better.

If you just want it to work then choose Pop (most people would say Mint but not me, in my experience Mint is WAAAY to picky about what hardware it runs on).

 

For almost everything your average home user is going to want to do, there should be no need to touch anything in the /etc folder ever, it will all install from the GUI Package Store and come preconfigured and ready to go OOTB.

[RejZoR]

35 minutes ago, TheOnlyKirst said:

basically the title. the more choice people have, the harder it gets to make a choice. do you think this makes sense?

The amount of distros for Linux is absurd and it is an issue by itself for Linux.

 

My new personal favorite is Manjaro. They really did amazing job with latest version 21 and it's incredibly user friendly despite being based on very advanced distro (Arch Linux). I've not used so user friendly distro in some 20 years. I'd recommend picking KDE version because it's closest to Windows experience.

 

I used to be a fan of Ubuntu because of its wide adoption, but it's really not a good distro. If you have to use Kubuntu which is KDE based. But Manjaro is just better imo. I'm generally advanced user, but rulei have with Linux is that if distro allows me to achieve all my tweaking and installing of extras through simple interface, it wins. I don't want to ever touch Console/Terminal. Manjaro finally allowed me to do that and that sold me easily.

[TheOnlyKirst]

10 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

IMO the biggest barrier to entry for Linux is decades of closed source, proprietary software indoctrination. Microsoft and Apple want you used to their way because it means you'll keep using their products and making them money.

 

so could we say that this indoctrination lead to users that didn't learn/got used to tinkering on their own devices, or that didn't even get a chance to think about it as a real possibility in the first place? (think people born after this market was solidified, people that know no other world but a world where Apple is a trillion dollar company).

 

so maybe a way to further the discussion would be to ask: how to change this ingrained mindset?

[Sauron]

No. You can just pick any of the well known ones and you'll be fine. It's only an issue if you choose to make it one.

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

The amount of distros for Linux is absurd and it is an issue by itself for Linux.

 

My new personal favorite is Manjaro. They really did amazing job with latest version 21 and it's incredibly user friendly despite being based on very advanced distro (Arch Linux). I've not used so user friendly distro in some 20 years. I'd recommend picking KDE version because it's closest to Windows experience.

 

I used to be a fan of Ubuntu because of its wide adoption, but it's really not a good distro. If you have to use Kubuntu which is KDE based. But Manjaro is just better imo.

Arch is not really any more advanced than anything else, the biggest difference (at least with base Arch) is that all the easy shortcuts you find on other distros are missing.

 

A perfect example is running a grub update, on Debian or RHEL based distros you do "sudo update-grub" and it just works where as on Arch you have to run the actual binary and specify all the flags manually (sudo ./usr/bin/grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg).

 

Arch is set up in such a way as the user is expected to know how to do things manually. I guess you could say, it expects its users to be more advanced in their understanding on the Linux kernel and filesystem.

[TheOnlyKirst]

9 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I don't want to ever touch Console/Terminal

cries in Ubuntu (it's a work PC, they won't let me change it)

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, TheOnlyKirst said:

so maybe a way to further the discussion would be to ask: how to change this ingrained mindset?

Its already happening, schools are now teaching kids about Linux through things like Raspberry Pis and Valve is going hardcore on the gaming front.

 

Kids need to be taught that Windows is not the only OS, unfortunately (as mentioned above) the chances are that when that happens Windows will just be replaced with ChromeOS which is even more dumbed down and walled off.

[10leej]

4 hours ago, TheOnlyKirst said:

basically the title. the more choice people have, the harder it gets to make a choice. do you think this makes sense?

It's a yes and no answer. Reallly thouhg it seems that "best linux distro" or "how to switch to linux" or "how to install linux" usually really narrow down the search and ubuntu is generally the most commonly recommended distro

[ReedyBear]

12 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

IMO the biggest barrier to entry for Linux is decades of closed source, proprietary software indoctrination. Microsoft and Apple want you used to their way because it means you'll keep using their products and making them money.

WOW you nailed it. I feel like there's this ongoing idea that linux is doing something wrong because it's not friendly enough or something. But the biggest problem with linux is compatibility with Windows programs & windows games

I REALLY want to convert a friend to linux, but he uses OneDrive & getting that setup on Linux Mint is awful. One package is cli-based & not viable for him. The other requires a newer version of the kernel (well of glibc). & I think Linux Mint was the wrong choice for him, too.

Choice, though. I do think this is an issue, not just for linux newbies. I get overwhelmed by the choices & ... overwhelmed by all the "best distro" or "distro comparison" articles & videos. It's not just that there are so many choices, but I don't understand what the choices are or how they make a difference. (I'm beginning to, though)

I LOVE linux & have used it for years. I run Fedora with i3wm & generally love cli.

[Giganthrax]

I don't think the large number of distros is a problem since the mainstream ones are well-known and trying different ones out is extremely easy and 100% free. 

 

The main problem is that Windows/MacOS come pre-installed on computers, while also being extremely reliable, prepackaged with useful apps, and very user-friendly, so 99% of the desktop users never feel any need to switch. In case you run into some problem with your MacOS/Win10, the internet is absolutely brimming with troubleshooting tips and there's a big chance you know at least someone who can help you out.

 

Until a streamlined, user-friendly, good-looking distro like Kubuntu, ZorinOS, or Linux Mint becomes widely available on storebought laptops & computers (and able to run games as well as Win10), you're probably not going to see a widespread shift toward Linux. However, if that does occur, expect desktop Linux to become corporatized like Android is today.

[Master Disaster]

35 minutes ago, Giganthrax said:

However, if that does occur, expect desktop Linux to become corporatized like Android is today.

Lets establish the distinction between GNU/Linux and Linux (this is for reference, I don't care if you use Linux as the generic term, heck I do as well).

 

Linux is nothing more than a Kernel, on its own it doesn't really function as an operating system.

 

What everyone calls Linux is actually GNU/Linux. GNU is the software stack that runs on top of the Kernel and allows it to do anything useful. GNU itself is mostly just a set of programming libraries that allow coders to talk to the Kernel through C as well as the tools and binaries to compile and run software but GNU also has a pretty strict license attached to it (called the GPL). Anybody can use GNU to create anything they want as long as they make the source code publicly available, when you write software under the GNU license you technically don't really own the end product, everybody does.

 

GPL actually doesn't restrict coders from selling software and actually advocates that commercialism is important for Linux to succeed but this has all already been done back in the late 90s/early 00s. You used to be able to walk into stores a buy big box Linux (Caldera, OpenLinux, Debian etc) but it was pretty quickly realised that home/desktop users aren't going to pay for Linux which is why they settled on the current system of having Home Linux be 100% free and Enterprise Linux be commercialised, mostly though dedicated 24/7 support.

 

Its very unlikely that desktop Linux is ever going to be commercialised, I can guarantee it wont happen as long as Torvold's has any say in the matter.

[10leej]

49 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

You used to be able to walk into stores a buy big box Linux (Caldera, OpenLinux, Debian etc) but it was pretty quickly realised that home/desktop users aren't going to pay for Linux which is why they settled on the current system of having Home Linux be 100% free and Enterprise Linux be commercialised, mostly though dedicated 24/7 support.

Actually, Debian was never sold by the debian project, it was only on store shelves as a way to build funding, you could still show up at a Linux User Group gatherings and install Debian/Mandrake/redhat and such. But, of course the internet being what it was back in those days, it was just easier to buy the box set. You can therefor correlate the end of box set sales alongside the expansion of high speed internet (not broadband, OG high speed).

Ubuntu/redhate/Suse were the only ones actively trying to profit from home box sales with ubuntu even going as far as having a subscription for a 24/7 support line.

54 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Its very unlikely that desktop Linux is ever going to be commercialised, I can guarantee it wont happen as long as Torvold's has any say in the matter.

Umm, who's the group that pays Torvalds? And who does Torvalds actually work with every day?

It's not you and me. Linux has already gone commercial. It's the desktop distro's that haven't.

 

If you want to be commercial free, you're best bet is to help get the GNU Herd kernel to be relevant. Somethign at it's current pace wont happen for another 20 or so years, but can you really blame the GNU project in that regard? They've literally built EVERYTHING ELSE for us at one point for a team that's shockingly small.

[Master Disaster]

12 minutes ago, 10leej said:

If you want to be commercial free, you're best bet is to help get the GNU Herd kernel to be relevant. Somethign at it's current pace wont happen for another 20 or so years, but can you really blame the GNU project in that regard? They've literally built EVERYTHING ELSE for us at one point for a team that's shockingly small.

Nah, I'm not a FOSS or nothing die hard. Proprietary/commercial software has its place just as FOSS does, as it turns out, its kind of hard to get the best people working on a project if there's no prospect of any compensation.

 

As modern security shows, its pretty damn important that you get the best people working on the important stuff like enterprise environments and exploit discovery then over time those changes filter down to everyone.

 

If someone wants to run Windows or macOS, fine by me (not that my opinion really matters anyway). I choose to run Linux, others a free to choose whatever serves their needs the best.

 

Plus being an Arch user, I always keep a Windows install on a second drive, you never know if/when its going to implode and sometimes I need a machine quickly

[10leej]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Nah, I'm not a FOSS or nothing die hard. Proprietary/commercial software has its place just as FOSS does, as it turns out, its kind of hard to get the best people working on a project if there's no prospect of any compensation.

 

As modern security shows, its pretty damn important that you get the best people working on the important stuff like enterprise environments and exploit discovery then over time those changes filter down to everyone.

 

If someone wants to run Windows or macOS, fine by me (not that my opinion really matters anyway). I choose to run Linux, others a free to choose whatever serves their needs the best.

 

Plus being an Arch user, I always keep a Windows install on a second drive, you never know if/when its going to implode and sometimes I need a machine quickly

I keep the latest ubuntu LTS around on a USB stick the arch installer scripts are even in ubuntu's repo's and it's great to have around as a system "fix my crap" instalation.

 

Also for Arch, why have you not switched the btrfs yet? I'm on gnetoo and btrfs snapshots have saved my instalation a few times (something you kinda learn to fix with a system like Gentoo)

[Master Disaster]

27 minutes ago, 10leej said:

I keep the latest ubuntu LTS around on a USB stick the arch installer scripts are even in ubuntu's repo's and it's great to have around as a system "fix my crap" instalation.

 

Also for Arch, why have you not switched the btrfs yet? I'm on gnetoo and btrfs snapshots have saved my instalation a few times (something you kinda learn to fix with a system like Gentoo)

IIRC I am running btrfs but for some reason, I never bother taking snapshots and honestly, my install has been rock solid for a good 6 months or more now.

 

Any important files are either on other drives or on my NAS and I do keep my scripts and configs backed up but the OS dying isn't really that big of a deal.

 

I REALLY wanna move my homelab/webserver from ext4 to btrfs but if anything goes wrong its literal hours to get it back up and running properly and I would lose data in the process. What I'll probably end up doing is fitting it with a second SSD, DDing the original drive over then unplugging it and keeping it as a backup. My understanding is that you also need to install a btrfs grub module (my Arch install has this, I've seen the /boot/grub/grub-btrfs file) but TBH I haven't looked into it yet. My server is working perfectly and I strongly abide by, if it ain't broke don't try to fix it.

[10leej]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

IIRC I am running btrfs but for some reason, I never bother taking snapshots and honestly, my install has been rock solid for a good 6 months or more now.

 

Any important files are either on other drives or on my NAS and I do keep my scripts and configs backed up but the OS dying isn't really that big of a deal.

 

I REALLY wanna move my homelab/webserver from ext4 to btrfs but if anything goes wrong its literal hours to get it back up and running properly and I would lose data in the process. What I'll probably end up doing is fitting it with a second SSD, DDing the original drive over then unplugging it and keeping it as a backup. My understanding is that you also need to install a btrfs grub module (my Arch install has this, I've seen the /boot/grub/grub-btrfs file) but TBH I haven't looked into it yet. My server is working perfectly and I strongly abide by, if it ain't broke don't try to fix it.

Only if you want to boot into snapshots, and there is a tool to convert btrfs to ext4 that works quite reliably that said it's still worth while to backup, always backup your data. I planned my backup before I ever planned my homelab.