It is not what I wish, it is what Linux is.
Sure , as Paul points out, with a decent distro like Mint, one can avoid CLI most of the time for comman tasks.
Linux is more than that. one can go as deep as one wants. That is what attracts serious Linux users… but, I agree, it does not attract Win converts… and that is the point… most of what Linux is good at is unattractive to Win users.
So what, if anything, does attract Win users?
And why is it, that it is always the same ‘users’ discussing on why ‘Windows users’ are so hard to convert to Linux? I ‘for one’ have no issue in running ‘Linux and Windows’ but the appeal for Linux ‘as a full time OS’ not my cup of tea!!!
I would like to know why all that are posting
,here, is the scare of Windows? Is it because your machines do not meet certain requirements or you might have to purchase a product key? I see nothing in your arguments, that might, come close, to switching a perfectly running Windows PC to Linux.
Maybe the members of Foss need to accept the fact, that not all users really like Linux!!!
I accept that. Conversion efforts are mostly a waste of time. People will find Linux if they want it.
Your position is qjite tenable… You like Win for what it is good at, and you like Linux for what it is good at… in your case they do not overlap.
I only have one old Dell machine that boots Gentoo, by default and Windows XP!! I now have two desktop machines, running W11, and using VBOX to boot Linux!!!
We can forget Windows ‘power’ users and hard-core gamers. They’re too mentally fixed on Windows as the only desirable environment (not talking about you, Arch users).
The realistic target group for Linux conversion is the ordinary user who needs email, social media, and simple productivity. If they don’t want to spend money on a Chromebook and like their current Windows 10 machine, a free Linux conversion might sell them. Boot their machine with a live USB from Mint; let them compare with their own fingers. Avoid mentioning CLI unless asked. Emphasize FREE and CHOICE and NO UPDATE HASSLES.
[Edit: clone your own daily driver as a live USB, with the apps you like and use.]
I would never consider myself in that group, having gone through every version since 2.0 (never saw 1) and taught the same to thousands of students of different ages and levels.
Just fed up with updates that take for ever to down load then choose to install when I want to be productive so restricted.
Now being told by microsoft to buy a new computer.
Yes I worked for microsoft for a while and was afterwards a business partner. I dont hold anything against them as a company just decided its no longer my cup of tea.
Think Bill hit it on the head with
And
Its what I sell to my clients and feel happy to do so
Just wish at times it was easier to
Rather than downloading cutting dvd or usb boot, changing bios in some cases or boot order. Things that make it complex for anyone who does not know.
I love the way apple have the reinstall the mac system from the net. Mac fails for what ever reason, so clean install start your mac holding different keys (intel or M technology) after a few mins it connects you to a install you leave it a couple of hours, bing you have a new clean installed mac. (Ok you have a few keys to press in the middle and select language, country, wifi or cable. And the speed is down to your internet provider.)
One of the guys I worked with decades ago had Windows 1 on diskettes. I booted it with him one time and it was more a toy than usable at all. That’s how things get started I guess.
DOS was usable without Win. Win was too slow on old 286 PC’s.
We had a 386 with DOS that ran image processing in real time from a video camera and a framebuffer card. All done by a Fortran program… no graphic display, just numerical results.
Before that one would have used a mini-computer for a data logging job.
This idea that you sit at the computer while it does work and expect instant results is a modern concept. The old idea was you set a job running left it alone… come back next day for results.
I think this depends on whether they want it off the shelf or with some personal effort. I think only the latter are suitable for Linux.
Will Linux save the planet? Is Windows a “rolling” release? Wish I knew the answer to these questions.
Sure, you can run Linux on some pretty old hardware, gobbling the kilowatts every time you boot up. I have a project underway to run all computer hardware off of solar energy, including an internet router and laptop chargers. Windows is documented to run on fewer kilowatts when running but that seems so rare lately: multiple GiB of downloads consuming 80% of the CPU makes Windows pretty unusable. I guess it’s the price of security and a more streamlined kernel. And Linux is less targeted by nation-states and the like because it’s less popular.
Back when I lived in the “North Woods” we had a sort of pact to keep our little piece of “frozen paradise” a secret when we traveled to the “Outside” and maybe it’s time we (mostly) hard-core Linux advocates stopped evangelizing.
In the words of one of my favorite authors, Hunter S. Thompson:
“Insanity isn’t for everybody, but it has worked quite well for me!”
I would love to see a copy of this report as its the first time I have heard that …
As windows never shuts down just deep sleep.
Ok ssd take less power than hard disks
And it it a real comparison between windows, linux or mac.
My last tower power supply was much bigger in capacity than older ones and it was not used for cd or dvd drives.
Interesting to know more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xme4z52vB4I is fairly dated, and Windows 11 has some pretty cool “green tweaks” I’ve never seen elsewhere in Linux. But … most of the comparisons on power consumption deal with a full-bloat Ubuntu.LATEST with all Snaps and other guck enabled, such as Flatpaks, or Rollers like OpenSUSE Tumbleweed or Arch or Fedora; comparing that with a fully “tuned-down” Windows 11 and the Linuxes will always come up short.
As far as sleep/shutdown, that impacts mostly startup time, which a lot of Linux geeks seem fixated on, rather than longer-term power consumption, which translates into how often you plug that laptop into the wall wart, and how long you charge.
I would also like to see a more “scientific” comparison, maybe I’ll try one myself, any ideas on how to do that without writing Opcode? One thing that Windows “partners” offer is that low-level software that offer “cool/dark” operational modes, Linux can catch up with them but the “big 5” hardware vendors are hesitant to plunk the cash into OSes that represent <5% of their sales.
Thus, Windows will inevitably be ahead in the power consumption category. At least that’s my working theory. It’s also ahead in “malware magnetism” too, I guess that’s “Don’t throw out the Baby with the Bathwater” concept.
Sorry to disagree with your thoughts. You dont need code just a power consumption meter that is the best way to tell. Otherwide you compair apples with oranges !
Linux offers the same options on sleep and wakeup main difference is hard disk spinning power consumptions.
On the virus, malware, spyware windows wins hands down. Thank goodness for malwarebytes and the products they offer. But in the end you may still have to clean install windows several times from new just in case your copy is infected. Been there done that and wasted hours…
Well Win is not a more streamlined kernel. They attempted to implement a micro-kernel by shifting stuff to user-space. That led to enormous message passing problems between kernel and user space modules. In contrast, Linux has everything in one kernel and has no messaging problems.
That is the big difference between Linux and Win kernels. The monolithic kernel approach of Linux proved to be better. I have heard Win is slowly backing out of the micro-kernel approach.
Hello, everyone. I’ve been a Linux user since 2017. I consider myself an intermediate user (neither pro nor newbie).
I shifted to Linux for two reasons:
In the beginning of my Linux journey, I avoided CLI and terminal as much as I could. But, as the time went by, I began to fell in love with the terminal. Nowadays, I prefer TUI and CLI apps (I even listen to music on terminal through cmus).
I prefer Linux now because it can do what Windows do and it does better. And Linux is way friendlier now. It can pleases any kind of of user: average or power user, developers, sys admins.
Hi @crisdoxavier ,
That is , I imagine, the way most people progress into Linux.
I was different, I had already used CLI systems (BSD) before I started with Linux. So I found CLI easier than GUI. I still find it easier, except for things like web browser.I dont use the File Manager, I find CLI commands quite adequate for managing files.
It does not matter what one uses, you just need to feel comfortable with it,
Regards
Neville
Linux is difficult to use than windows -
Lack of Windows-Specific Software
Different Desktop Environments
Linux is complex and requires extensive technical knowledge.
SCNR.
Maybe, depends on what you want to do. BTW, word processing and emailing aren’t Windows specific…
Nobody forces you to deal with it. Some name this an advantage.
So does Windows, as soon as you have to go behind the curtain.
[quote=“Alinah, post:158, topic:14109, username:Alinah”]
Linux is difficult to use
[/quote]
So untrue
Linux mint looks and feels like windows, plus you have similar software on both. Bit like the difference between one car make and another, you just adapt quickly. Much easier than the change between windows 3 and 95, or 7 and 8, or 10 to 11 where the desktop changed so much and things you had bought were no longer compatibles
[quote=“Paul, post:160, topic:14109, username:callpaul.eu”]
Hey Paul, since a few days, all your quotations are broken. The issue is the use of “” instead of ““. Are you writing with a word processor program? @callpaul.eu
