This site is comically bad. I clicked on "Why" and got "It’s free, more secure, and runs on almost PC." What is an "almost PC"? Is that what you call a Linux desktop machine? (Yes, I know it's a typo)
Upgrade to Linux
31–40 of 138 posts
Re: Upgrade to Linux
#32For me, Linux would be a downgrade. Suddenly there's a bunch of software I can't run anymore. I actually really like windows 11, plus I can install and run any linux software as if it is a native windows program, and while I can do this, actually, there really isn't many gui apps in the linux world that aren't already on windows and worth running. However, being able to open a linux shell on windows is really useful.…
This kind of comment is exactly what I feared first time I heard about wsl.
Re: Upgrade to Linux
#33Again Linux users trying to convert Windows users at every OS change. It wont work well. Windows users expect Windows, not having to relearn everything from scratch
Clicking on the web browser in Ubuntu isn't any different to doing so on Windows.
How many people need more than: browser, word/excel clone, and email client?
Everything is moving onto the web and Windows becomes less relevant.
Why do you think ChromeOS is so popular?
Re: Upgrade to Linux
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the small issue that despite how much Windows sucks Linux continues to be worse.
It start and ends with applications. As long as linux doesn't provide unique high-value software that doesn't exist on windows, why should anybody bother ?
It's also that there are no guarantees your hardware is supported -- so when you do bother, you might find yourself in config hell trying to get your wifi to work.
Re: Upgrade to Linux
#35My work PC & laptop are running Linux due to development reasons and the first thing I had to do on them is setting up basic functionality such as trackpad scrolling and mitigating weird window behavior and wallpaper resetting on monitor sleep, and it is still a subpar desktop experience compared to macOS or even Windows.
Re: Upgrade to Linux
#36This is the year of Linux on the desktop!
Re: Upgrade to Linux
#37This website is terrible. Its "resources" are almost entirely just links to articles and youtube videos. The information is poorly presented and poorly written. Why is the front page entirely taken up by a picture of a penguin?
It's so bad it's kinda cool. Gives me Lindows Rock vibes.
Re: Upgrade to Linux
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange they recommend Fedora and not Arch for learning Linux internals
I find that suggestion odd as well. I can't think of a single reason why Ubuntu should be favoured over Fedora as a quote "easy way to try and step into GNU/Linux" either. All three of their distro suggestions ship GNOME by default. Fedora is such a clear choice for those who want to use GNOME without all of the non-standard crap Canonical insists on tacking onto the DE and the overall environment.
> Fedora is such a clear choice for those who want to use GNOME without all of the non-standard crap Canonical insists on tacking onto the DE and the overall environment.
I think you've gotten unintentionally close to answering GP's question, and your own.
By virtue of Fedora being the literal upstream of RHEL and getting lots of attention from the RedHat guys, it is (IMO, YMMV) both a big testing ground for new RedHat software, and also pushes new software versions and features probably more aggressively than any distro except rolling release ones.
Keep in mind, software like SystemD, NetworkManager, D-Bus, the PAM implementation most distros use (Wikipedia claims some use the BSD openPAM implementation, can't find those though), PolKit, and others seem to have pretty big financial or engineering support from RedHat. Fedora ends up effectively being "the lowest common denominator" in the sense that most other distros end up being "like Fedora but with replaced with ".
The sometimes bleeding edge feature set and use of new functionality (like Wayland, systemd-resolved, pipewire off the top of my head) can make it a bit less "beginner friendly", potentially, than a more conservative distro. It also makes it very appealing if you want to understand the "technical side of Linux", since anything you learn on Fedora will probably transfer more easily to other distros than vice versa, even if Fedora is more convoluted and full of cruft.
That's my takeaway, at least. Compared to Arch, a given release of Fedora will have about as up-to-date versions of major software, with the benefit of release engineering. Rolling release is a drug not everyone is strong enough to take...
edit thoughts: I want to be clear, the projects that RedHat either started or is heavily involved with usually have a lot of community involvement too. I don't want to minimize the importance of other contributors, just pointing out RedHat does a decent amount of work in several low level components of "GNU/Linux"
Re: Upgrade to Linux
#39This website seems like it was made by someone who doesn’t know very much about computers
Re: Upgrade to Linux
#40Is it just me or is the Ubuntu font really hard to read for long-form text? It doesn't help that it's larger than normal body text too. Sites like this remind me that custom fonts in CSS were a mistake. On topic… calling switching to Linux an "upgrade" is pretty presumptuous. It's not an upgrade for someone whose business relies on programs or technologies which are still only available on Windows - for many of those…
I find the font very visually appealing at larger (heading, not enlarged paragraph) sizes, but agree even then it’s harder to read than more common choices. The part I think most makes it difficult is the very high x-height to cap-height ratio, then the very low descender to everything ratio. That already makes different letters harder to distinguish, even they didn’t all have very similar curves and understated distinguishing features. It works really well for 1-3 branding words, and it’s very visually striking. But I wouldn’t consider it for much beyond that.