TR Forums

The answer is, Yes.
From installation to usage, Linux is more understandable, actionable, configurable, and therefore easier to use than Windows. More choices offers better value.
Fortunately, due to the introduction of Linux to the Desktop in 1992, Microsoft has been forced to improve it's proprietary OS to offer many of the free features and functions that Linux users find compelling.
Proving, Competition is a good thing.

AMDisDEC wrote:

The answer is, Yes.
From installation to usage, Linux is more understandable, actionable, configurable, and therefore easier to use than Windows. More choices offers better value.
Fortunately, due to the introduction of Linux to the Desktop in 1992, Microsoft has been forced to improve it's proprietary OS to offer many of the free features and functions that Linux users find compelling.
Proving, Competition is a good thing.

I have always found Linux easier to install, even back in '98 when I checked out Red Hat 5.2. Don't laugh, but the reason I didn't stick with it is because I was using AOL due not knowing of any local ISPs at the time. As I kept using Linux I started disliking Windows more and more.

whm1974 wrote:

NTMBK wrote:

I'd say that the most popular distribution is much easier to use than Windows; I've never used the command line at all on Android.

Is it even possible to use the CLI in Android?

*shrug* The fact that I don't need to know that demonstrates the user friendliness.

whm1974 wrote:

NTMBK wrote:

I'd say that the most popular distribution is much easier to use than Windows; I've never used the command line at all on Android.

Is it even possible to use the CLI in Android?

Yes, but you'll be in Windows on your home box and you'll be using ADB to mess with your USB-connected phone in really interesting ways.

Captain Ned wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

NTMBK wrote:

I'd say that the most popular distribution is much easier to use than Windows; I've never used the command line at all on Android.

Is it even possible to use the CLI in Android?

Yes, but you'll be in Windows on your home box and you'll be using ADB to mess with your USB-connected phone in really interesting ways.

There are 3rd party CLI apps available that will run on the phone natively. Looks like some of them do not require the phone to be rooted.

just brew it! wrote:

There are 3rd party CLI apps available that will run on the phone natively. Looks like some of them do not require the phone to be rooted.

Even in my depths of Droid madness I never had to go full ADB to get the suckers rooted. Haven't rooted the Nexus 6P because why? I'd have to use ADB to push the monthly security updates once rooted.

Just for grins, I installed "Terminal Emulator for Android" a couple of minutes ago. No root required. PITA to use with the Android on-screen keyboard, but many of the common CLI tools appear to be there (ls, cp, mv, chmod, grep, more, gzip, tar, etc.)

The day I'm doing CLI on my phone is the day my 'Net dead-man switch activates.

I've actually used my phone to SSH into other systems before, using JuiceSSH (which also includes an on-screen keyboard extension that makes CLI usage less awkward). But that's a very different thing from doing CLI stuff on the phone natively (which I only did here to satisfy my curiosity after whm1974 asked about it).

DancinJack wrote:

Also, it should be "Is Linux getting easier to use than Windows?"

Yes it should be.

deruberhanyok wrote:

Since you brought up Mac OS, which is an excellent example of what would need to be done for "Linux" to gain any real traction with regular everyday users, people buy a Mac because "oh they're supposed to be really nice" or "oh they don't have viruses like Windows" and then they will go and make a genius appointment to learn how to use their new Mac. Or they'll buy an iPad because it's easier. Or they'll buy the new iPhone just because it's the new iPhone. There's no research process here. They walk into the store and say "I want to buy a Macbook" and the sales guy says "which color?"

I mean, go sit in the back of an Apple store for a couple hours and listen to the questions people are asking. Do you think they all did their research before they bought their shiny new Mac? And, more importantly: if the Apple geniuses told them "Well, I'm sorry ma'am, but it appears you are not smart enough to use a Mac and you should go back to Windows, why did you even buy this Macbook?" that anyone would bother with them?

There are certain benefits to being able to charge money for a product, such as having cost centers like R&D and customer service.

way2strong wrote:

The notion that the average computer user is completely baffled by the command line but is capable of troubleshooting problems on Windows strikes me as ridiculous.

It is totally ridiculous. Which is why I said the average computer user doesn't know and doesn't care to know. If the user is already at a point where they're googling to try and fix a weird problem in Windows they've moved beyond "average user".

way2strong wrote:

if you asked them what OS they use they'd tell you, "the one that came with the computer."

Actually, I think you'd find the first response from most would be "what's an operating system?"

Then you'd say, "you know, like Windows?"

And they'd say... "Oh, I have Microsoft 2016."

Thin Man wrote:

Now if you ask "Is Linux easier to use than it use to be, yes. Anybody that ever dealt with it in the early days will, I think, agree.

For sure. I started on Mandrake Linux right around the time it launched - this was when you could still buy Linux in retail shops - and jumped through no end of hurdles trying to get it to work. Compared to that, Ubuntu is a revelation.

Thin Man wrote:

Do we need people to sell Linux, Lord NO, not if they're going to "sell" it the way most things are sold nowadays. If you like Linux and are willing to put in the time and effort to learn how to use it, go for it, If not, then stay with what is designed for the disinterested.

This is like a super succinct way of putting it, but I agree. If you want widespread desktop adoption you'd need two things: one distro to rule them all, from which all others derive, and some kind of support and "sales" mechanism for getting it out there (even if it is free). The point I was making was that the average user probably doesn't even know what an "operating system" is, and without some kind of metaphorical "sales" guy to talk to, they won't bother trying to understand.

I wouldn't say Linux is easier to use than Windows. After install, PulseAudio is configured pretty crappily. I had to install gedit, then go edit the daemon.conf file for PulseAudio and change the resample method to src-sinc-best-quality and trust me, with a decent set of speakers, you will notice, even with basic onboard sound. And if you are just doing basic web surfing, email, youtube videos, and listening to music, Linux is best, hands down. And less worries about viruses if you have questionable surfing habits. For everything else like business productivity or gaming, use Windows, or a Mac (w/ bootcamp for the gaming part). I would not recommend Linux for grandma or grandpa. Some things like updates might be too confusing for them.

just brew it! wrote:

Just for grins, I installed "Terminal Emulator for Android" a couple of minutes ago. No root required. PITA to use with the Android on-screen keyboard, but many of the common CLI tools appear to be there (ls, cp, mv, chmod, grep, more, gzip, tar, etc.)

Termux is what you want for a "good" Android CLI environment. It's about the closest you can get to a Debian installation running inside Android, including a package manager.

You'll want the Hacker's Keyboard app installed so you can get modifier keys; if you're on a phone hold it sideways.

confusedpenguin wrote:

I wouldn't say Linux is easier to use than Windows. After install, PulseAudio is configured pretty crappily. I had to install gedit, then go edit the daemon.conf file for PulseAudio and change the resample method to src-sinc-best-quality and trust me, with a decent set of speakers, you will notice, even with basic onboard sound. And if you are just doing basic web surfing, email, youtube videos, and listening to music, Linux is best, hands down. And less worries about viruses if you have questionable surfing habits. For everything else like business productivity or gaming, use Windows, or a Mac (w/ bootcamp for the gaming part). I would not recommend Linux for grandma or grandpa. Some things like updates might be too confusing for them.

Most casual users aren't going to notice or care about the resampling quality since they're going to be using the crappy speakers built in to their monitor or the $5 earbuds that came with their phone. The default PulseAudio settings will be just fine for them, and people who actually care about fidelity will Google it and figure it out like you did.

As far as updates for seniors go... the update process in modern DEs isn't *that* bad, and even if they never update it's probably a fair tradeoff for being completely immune to the "Hello, I am from Windows Technical Support, please install this remote access tool so I can fix your computer for you!" scams.

just brew it! wrote:

confusedpenguin wrote:

I wouldn't say Linux is easier to use than Windows. After install, PulseAudio is configured pretty crappily. I had to install gedit, then go edit the daemon.conf file for PulseAudio and change the resample method to src-sinc-best-quality and trust me, with a decent set of speakers, you will notice, even with basic onboard sound. And if you are just doing basic web surfing, email, youtube videos, and listening to music, Linux is best, hands down. And less worries about viruses if you have questionable surfing habits. For everything else like business productivity or gaming, use Windows, or a Mac (w/ bootcamp for the gaming part). I would not recommend Linux for grandma or grandpa. Some things like updates might be too confusing for them.

Most casual users aren't going to notice or care about the resampling quality since they're going to be using the crappy speakers built in to their monitor or the $5 earbuds that came with their phone. The default PulseAudio settings will be just fine for them, and people who actually care about fidelity will Google it and figure it out like you did.

As far as updates for seniors go... the update process in modern DEs isn't *that* bad, and even if they never update it's probably a fair tradeoff for being completely immune to the "Hello, I am from Windows Technical Support, please install this remote access tool so I can fix your computer for you!" scams.

My dad is using Linux just fine. Of course I setup everything for him and keep him updated.

whm1974 wrote:

My dad is using Linux just fine. Of course I setup everything for him and keep him updated.

Not everyone has someone to do that for them though. On balance, in that situation (where there isn't someone to do periodic maintenance and ensure updates get installed) I'd say Linux is probably safer over the short to medium term, but less safe over the long term, as the installed web browser becomes increasingly out-of-date.

This thread is amusing. whm's dad uses his PC like a Chromebook (a web browser and cloud docs), most likely with all the shortcuts he ever needs pinned to the Ubuntu dock or whatever, and suddenly Linux is easier to use than Windows.

I will say that if you're manually updating a Linux machine you're either doing it wrong or you need a different distro. My Kubuntu VM is constantly nagging me about updating itself, which it does just fine and then reboots. That's one of the smaller touches it takes to get Linux into the mainstream. Along with a graphical installer for downloaded installers, automatic driver downloads, and some sort of app store, because nobody wants to sudo apt-get or Google for the weird Linux name for an iTunes equivalent all the freakin time. Ubuntu and its variants (and Mint, I'm guessing) hits some of those high points but not all of them.

whm1974 wrote:

I have always found Linux easier to install, even back in '98 when I checked out Red Hat 5.2.

I guess you never did a Stage 1 install of Gentoo. I was curious, so I did, and I never wanted to do it again.

I'm sure there are people who enjoyed doing that also just like there are some people who enjoy getting tied up and beaten, but they don't expect it to become commonplace.

"installing" Linux was never as easy as Windows until recently. Back in the early '00's there was always something jacked up. Wifi and sound were consistently issues on a lot of distros. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't convince me that Linux was easier to install in 1998. No way.

If you count basic configuration of your devices as part of the install process it sometimes still isn't quite so easy. The best example being video drivers. Hiss. Boo. Sucks.

derFunkenstein wrote:

I will say that if you're manually updating a Linux machine you're either doing it wrong or you need a different distro.

How exactly am I doing it wrong? There are plenty of reasons to dislike auto-updates even when MS isn't involved.

synthtel2 wrote:

derFunkenstein wrote:

I will say that if you're manually updating a Linux machine you're either doing it wrong or you need a different distro.

How exactly am I doing it wrong? There are plenty of reasons to dislike auto-updates even when MS isn't involved.

You're not. Auto updates are evil for anyone with a non-standard config. In Linux, that's a lot of hardware/software, even compared to Windows.

Waco wrote:

synthtel2 wrote:

derFunkenstein wrote:

I will say that if you're manually updating a Linux machine you're either doing it wrong or you need a different distro.

How exactly am I doing it wrong? There are plenty of reasons to dislike auto-updates even when MS isn't involved.

You're not. Auto updates are evil for anyone with a non-standard config. In Linux, that's a lot of hardware/software, even compared to Windows.

I've noticed that Ubuntu 16.04 no longer harangues me for automatic updates as 14.04 did. I have to launch the Software Manager, and then it tells me what updates are available (including OS udpates). I've also noticed that 16.04 updates fail to install correctly on a far more regular basis than 14.04 updates, which usually only failed to install when the OS root directory was overloaded with old kernel versions and reuqired a CLI purge. Whether this new arrangement is good or bad compared to the old depends on the user's specific usage case, I suppose.

DancinJack wrote:

"installing" Linux was never as easy as Windows until recently. Back in the early '00's there was always something jacked up. Wifi and sound were consistently issues on a lot of distros. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't convince me that Linux was easier to install in 1998. No way.

Well it did help that all of my hardware was supported. And I did RTFM that come came with the distro when I purchased it.

Yeah, and a person could solve triple integrals verbally without even writing anything down if they do enough research on those beforehand also. That's just child's play.

I don't understand where you're coming from with all this dude, but I guess that's not surprising. I've never understood the zealots of the open source community despite being "raised" in it while getting my own education. I did most of my coursework using emacs and gcc and somehow didn't get stuck with the rest of it along the way. I'm not entirely sure how that happened, but I'm glad it did.

I've never understood the zealots of the open source community despite being "raised" in it

Same for me. Most people don't care much about the OS -- it is the applications they care about. Here my instruments all are controlled by software that runs only on Windows: two HPLCs, two cIEF instruments, a fluorescence plate reader, an automated titrator and an Excel plugin for my multimeter. I keep my books on Quickbooks, which runs only on Windows. The finite element software I use runs on Windows (and Linux, an exception). I collaborate with faculty around the country who all use Word, EndNote and ChemDraw. My engineer gives me drawings in AutoCad format. I live off of Adobe Acrobat -- the Pro version, and not the simple and free Reader and the many compatibles -- to get my proposals funded.

Why would I use anything other than Windows?

Now I do use open-source software to glue things together. For me, it is FreeBSD, since I was at Berkeley during the 4.1/4.2 days, and it is wired into my fingers. It runs email and internal web sites. I have used it for 20 years. It is great at what it does, but I cannot base my business on it. Once I move to internal HPC I'll likely use Linux. but that's it.

I don't care how easy something is to use or install or licenses or anything else. I will use what makes me money.

Waco wrote:

synthtel2 wrote:

derFunkenstein wrote:

I will say that if you're manually updating a Linux machine you're either doing it wrong or you need a different distro.

How exactly am I doing it wrong? There are plenty of reasons to dislike auto-updates even when MS isn't involved.

You're not. Auto updates are evil for anyone with a non-standard config. In Linux, that's a lot of hardware/software, even compared to Windows.

But when it comes to mainstream acceptance, automatic updates are going to be mandatory.

Ignoring ALL of the technical merits of this discussion, the answer is "is Linux getting easier to use than Windows?" is no.

No matter what the interface looks like, everyone will have questions at some point when they hit the limit of their understanding. That point may come after 30 seconds, it may come after two weeks. Either way, people will turn to the people around them first, and in the case of Linux, there will be practically zero answers, so they'll search the web and rather than the top 20 results all being relevant to the Windows question asked, the results will instead be a mess. Sure, the answer's there somewhere but you can't just rely on the first page of results containing something relevant.

And even to me, a 20 year veteran of the x86 graphical operating system, as someone who dabbled with OS/2 Warp and preferred Norton Commander to DOSShell, certain fundamentally trivial things to do in Windows still waste my time with their quirks in various Linux distros, and have me wasting minutes or hours trawling the internet in an attempt to fix silly little issues that should have been ironed out before the distro ever even went public.

deruberhanyok wrote:

So your car example does a good job of illustrating my point - I guess what Linux distros need are sales guys willing to "sell" a free product and get nothing in return other than the satisfaction of knowing they helped someone learn a new thing. But Linux user communities are not those sales guys, and so desktop Linux will continue to be a niche thing.

You read my post correctly, yes. I think that Linux on the desktop is currently dead, mostly because MS killed it with Windows 10. Never underestimate free-as-in-beer. That alone determines whether Linux will ever have a Year.

Then again, stepping back a bit, it really doesn't matter. We're arguing about a OS as if the Desktop is the target use. That's like debating when OS/390 will have its year on the desktop.