this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2024
64 points (76.2% liked)
Linux
48157 readers
631 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Two things. Linux certainly does have a difficult learning curve, at least compared to Windows and OSX. I’m currently in Fedora 39 and I had to dig up some terminal commands off the internet just so I wasn’t choosing between 100% and 200% scaling. That’s just beyond the average computer user.
Secondly, I wish people could stop trying to teach everyone that Linux isn’t the OS. Anyone that cares already knows, and anyone that doesn’t know doesn’t care.
Maybe it's changing now with Windows 10/11, but I think historically Windows has had just as difficult learning curve as Linux. People who have complained about Linux being more difficult than Windows just thought so because they had already spent years learning how to deal with Windows, while if they switched to Linux they would have to learn new things. If someone who has used MacOS 100% of their life were to begin using either Windows or Linux then I don't think there would be much difference in difficulty.
I've come across plenty of bugs and usability issues in Windows, and despite having 10+ years experience with the OS I sometimes found them very difficult to solve, often requiring copy-pasting cryptic texts into the command prompt and/or regedit. I also think troubleshooting on Windows is made worse thanks to them writing witty things like "oops, something went wrong!" instead of actually giving you a useful error message, some many issues are of course unfixable due to its proprietary nature. At best you get an error code which you can look up online, but the OS is not made to be debugged by the user.
In the past Microsoft had really good support which you chat with, but the last time Windows refused to authenticate after an upgrade all the human support appears to have been replaced by automated troubleshooters. It got stuck in an endless loop of "run local troubleshooter" -> "you should try rebooting" -> "run online troubleshooter" -> "you should try rebooting" -> "back to the local troubleshooter again". At work I still have a help-desk I can call with people who have taken countless hours of Microsoft trainings to get certifications.
So if I understood you right, Fedora lets you choose either 100% or 200% scaling but you wanted more options than that? I.e. you wanted to overcome a limitation of the OS, rather than having to fix something which was broken? I don't think the average computer user could do something similar in Windows. For example when I got my work computer with Windows 11, AFAIK there was no option to only show the task bar on one monitor, so it was always visible and taking space on all monitors. IIRC Microsoft added this feature last year, but I think it would've been extremely difficult for the average user to find a way to find a way to do it before that.
Guesstimating 99% of the Windows users I know would just accept that kind of thing like "it's annoying, but this is how computers are". I have friends, family members and coworkers who use Windows, and I've found them all to be extremely forgiving towards computer issues.
While I agree that most of perception that linux is harder than windows comes from the fact what most people already invested they time into learning windows and not linux, there are certain difficulties users have to face then transitioning.
Linux is not uniform platform, and thus solutions to problems might depend on user enviroment. Average user want to have UI solution. But then searching it up they likely to not specify graphical environment or even distro, and thus they will likely mostly see terminal based solutions, mixed with UI solutions some of which will not work out of the box, because they assume KDE environment, while user has gnome.
This is a necessary trade-of for being able to provide extremely customizable system, as opposed to providing lowest common denominator system, but having docs for common tasks that easy to follow.
Linux learning curve is definitely steeper than windows - at least for 'the basics'.
Simply because of terminal commands. Thats a lot of info to learn and maintain just to do 'basics'.
Yeah you can search and find what you need to do, but again that's a lot of work for someone who just wants things to work.
Windows pretty much holds your hand to get the 'basics' up and running.
What does this "the basics" consist of then? I would've thought it was something along the lines of installing the OS, connecting a printer, installing common software (productivity suite, games, etc), setting a desktop theme you like and browsing the web, but none of that requires you to learn how to use the terminal.
Over my dead body!
Noob here. What do you mean Linux isn't the OS?
THANK YOU FOR ASKING, NO IT'S NOT.
I know the name 'Linux' is used to identify a family of OSs, but in reality it is actually only the kernel (the part of the system that allows hardware and software to communicate)
Would this be what people are getting at when they say "Gnu/Linux"? Or is it closer to saying "Linux Mint" or something?
This is exactly what people mean when they say GNU/Linux. They are trying to say that it is “the GNU Operating Syatem” with the Linux kernel.
This nonesense though. Please ignore them.
Linux Mint is an operating system. It uses the Linux kernel. The fact that it includes a handful of GNU packages in no way justifies co-opting the branding. Linux Mint includes A LOT of software from many sources. Are you going to try to list them all in the name?
Linux Mint would be an OS built on the Linux Kernel.
Some people have a hang-up on calling any Linux kernel based OS "Linux", because unlike its competitor, there is a lot of OS flavors.
You have "main" OSes (Debian, Fedora, etc.) and derivative OSes based on these "main" OSes.
Linux Mint for example, is based on Ubuntu, which is based on Debian.
At this point, it is semantics.
Interesting. I can imagine this crowd making a big deal of it. The biggest hurdle for many of us to switch is the user base we have to turn to for help. There's a lot of dissenting opinions and gatekeeping to muddle through. I'm liking Mint so far though. Thank you for the straightforward answer.
Mint is solid. I hope you have a great time on it!
I'll also add that sometimes people project a lot and have a hard time understanding that recommending advanced stuff to beginners is counterproductive more often than not, no matter how much they like said stuff. It's frustrating. It's important to meet people where they are and take their needs and goals into account.
Ironically, the people who need to hear this don't care.
It's 100% stallman trying to coat-tails Linus.
What I've learned in 30 years of using Linux is the gnu/Linux distinction only matters to the kind of whacko I can't work with. It's a great mineshaft canary to let me know whom not to invest any time in.
Linus wrote a kernel, and GNU wrote the majority of the userspace at the time.
How is that coat-tails-ing? Both projects had a tremendous amount of effort poured into them. And let's not forget GCC was the only free compiler for 20 years.
If people were asking for it to be called "GNU" only, then it'd be unfair. But they aren't.
Actually, Linux is just the kernel, not the whole OS. The full operating system is called GNU/Linux because it combines the Linux kernel with GNU tools. Teaching people about GNU and why it was made is important. It’s not just about using software but understanding the freedoms behind it – the freedom to use, study, modify, and share. Free Software is about more than just open-source, it's about user freedom, and that's a crucial distinction. Now, I'm not forcing you to say GNU/Linux, I say Linux most of the time myself, but you should still teach people about GNU.
Or as I've taken to calling it; GNU+Linux
Actually that is a common misconception by people who have read political blogs from the 90’s.
The OS that you are calling GNU/Linux is usually less than 2% GNU these days as the GNU Project is only responsible for about a hundred packages. Most Linux distros have between 3,000 and 80,000 packages depending on the distribution.
In fact, if we are talking about software licenses, calling it MIT/Linux would be more appropriate. If we are talking about attribution, Red Hat contributes more code than anybody so perhaps Red Hat/Linux is more up-to-date. That may cause confusion with Red Hat Enterprise Linux though so perhaps IBM/Linux is the best term to use as IBM owns Red Hat these days and is therefore the top contributor to most Linux distros.
Of course, most people just call it Linux because everything above is ridiculous ( including GNU / Linux ).
All that said, teaching people about the FSF, copyleft, and Free Software more generally is super important. The GNU Project itself is more of a historical artifact at this point ( in my view ) but there is no denying its extreme historical importance. It would be great if people knew more about it. Much like BSD.
Teaching people to say GNU / Linux is not only not important but is downright political and factually incorrect. Not a fan.
It's far from just GNU utils, though.
Should we say "I don't use Linux, I use GNU+Linux+systemd+pulseaudio+Wayland+Gnome+[etc]"
Idk, trying to solve something on Linux is usually just running some command on the terminal and your done. In windows you have to edit some special file on the registry or something like that. I think it's what you are used to use, I'm being a Linux user for 14 years now, I can't even think of how to solve something in windows (windows XP was my last windows install)
The feature you're referring to is called Fractional scaling. What Desktop are you using? Are you using Fedora Workstation (GNOME), Fedora KDE, or something else?
Not OP. But curios on the subject. I use debian bookworm with an older Nvidia 1050.
I currently tend to use gnome. As I have multi res monitors. Mainly due to vision issues. 2x32inch 2k 1x28inch 4k and a 24inch 1k
Dose any desktop allow stable fractional scaling for each monitor independently. Its been a good few years since I looked into it. But in the past it was unstable.
I know that a lot of work is being done across all Wayland desktops to get this supported but I don't fully know about the levels of support, as I don't use a DE and I have no need for fractional scaling. From what I've heard, KDE Plasma supports pretty much everything now, which includes fractional scaling.
Thanks ill lookninto that sometime soon.
I wish people could stop trying to teach everyone that Big Ben isn't the name of the clock. Nobody cares.
I wish people would stop trying to explain the difference between "to" and "too", it really doesn't matter.
Nock it off, people. If misconceptions are common, that means they're right.
I don't think anyone is claiming that common misconceptions somehow become correct, just that having that discussion with someone who doesn't care is pointless. Also, pedantic discussions like that are something that might turn people off from trying out Linux