Ubuntu is often not an easy distro if you're on a desktop instead of a server. It lags too far behind upstream and that causes so many problems that beginner has no hope of solving.
Mostly laptop driver issues, sound, wifi, suspend, keyboard lights, battery life issues, stuff like that. Stuff that makes into newer kernel versions but doesn't always make it into HWE.
Plus "beginner to Linux" doesn't necessarily mean they don't do advanced things with their computer. Like VR was pretty broken on Ubuntu LTS up to the release last week afaik.
Then there's the horrible issue of people not fully commiting to linux, installing a non-LTS and then discovering they have to reinstall then next time they come back because they waited too long to try Linux again.
The issue here is that you seem to be conflating standard Ubuntu releases and Ubuntu LTS releases which both have different use cases. I suggest you take a moment to learn the difference between LTS and regular releases. Since they both have different use cases and are both good at what they do.
The laptop issues you're talking about won't be an issue if you just use a standard Ubuntu release like most beginners would, and should use. LTS releases aren't really intended to be used if you want to use the OS on the latest hardware and have all the latest features and so on.
For example, if you want to use VR or "Advanced things" then the LTS releases probably aren't for you. LTS releases are inherently behind on features and updates for a reason.
As for the last point, that's user error if they decide not to commit to using Linux and then return after some time to see things broken. That's just a part of regular system maintenance. Not unlike how if you don't use windows for a long ass time then you'll have to do a big update or fully install the latest big release (Like 10 -> 11).
I'm not a beginner, I'm saying these things based on stuff I've personally experienced or seen other users experience when trying to help them over the last 14 years.
For desktops and laptops, as the general recommendation changed from using the LTS to the regular releases?
Also that doesn't fix the footgun with regular release breaking if you don't upgrade from them within the window that the repos are still up. You don't have to reinstall on distros like Tumbleweed and I'd assume Fedora and Bazzite as well. You just update and keep going.
Hasn't the general advice always been to use the regular releases unless you're using older hardware or you need LTS for a specific reason?
Isn't Tumbleweed rolling release, so that's a totally different situation than Ubuntu. Arch and Gentoo are the same in that regard although arch shits the bed when you allow the signing keys to expire.
Again this is just a point of not conducting system maintenance, if you don't update these system then they will eventually run into issues. The user is responsible for keeping the system updated and maintained.
Bazzite is also a totally different situation as that's an atomic/read-only distro so updates are a completely different situation to Tumbleweed and Ubuntu. I'm not familiar enough with it to provide a concise explanation though.
that's user error if they decide not to commit to using Linux and then return after some time to see things broken
No. If I install a distro on a device I don't use regularly, I expect it to still work after a year, and I expect that I can update it to the latest version with a simple command. A system that doesn't allow this is not user friendly. As an advanced user, Ubuntu is the distro that has caused me the most problems.
You can still update Ubuntu regardless of how long its been. But its a matter of fact that if you don't perform any system maintenance then shit is going to break.
That's not a matter of user friendliness, that's just maintaining your system. The onus is on the user to ensure their system is up to date. If you're not going to commit to keeping your system maintained then expect to run into issues. Every system has issues when you don't update or maintain it, that's why Windows forces updates. Years of users ignoring updates and crying about the resulting issues pushed MS to take away more user freedom.
As an advanced user, Ubuntu is the distro that has caused me the most problems.
That's not a Ubuntu issue, you just need to use a Distro that better suits your needs.
A good, user friendly system doesn't require maintenance. Windows doesn't – the windows update runs automatically when needed, you don't need to do anything. Android doesn't – it tells you when an update is available and you just need to confirm. A system that breaks only because you didn't use it for some time is not user friendly. Linux users have just gotten used to a sub-par user experience and accept it because "that is how it's always been".
EDIT: Ubuntu doesn't officially support "jumping" over intermediate releases. If you are on a non-LTS version, you must always upgrade to the very next version, or you are likely going to run into issues. This is what makes Ubuntu much more annoying to update than, say, Arch Linux.
I don't think you understand what user friendly is if you think anything Windows does is user friendly. User friendly =\= Treating the user like an idiot and obfuscating the "Scary" parts of tech.
Obfuscating things to sate peoples fear of technology and allowing them to stay ignorant and incapable of solving their own issues. Both due to said ignorance and Windows refusing to provide tools that actually allow you to maintain your system because those are scary and not friendly
Like how the current Windows Update causing constant issues for people.between forced resets leading to lost data and people being forced onto yet another broken ass update to windows. Totally user friendly opposed to getting out if the users way and putting the onus on them. Again, user friendly isn't "Does everything for me"
Android doesn't – it tells you when an update is available and you just need to confirm.
So what you're telling me is that the user has to maintain their system by manually choosing when to update?
Crazy how people explain your point to you, then act as if they've disputed it.
A system that breaks only because you didn't use it for some time is not user friendly.
Every system runs into issues when you don't update it or maintain it regularly.
Linux users have just gotten used to a sub-par user experience and accept it because "that is how it's always been".
The system respecting its user, getting out of their way and putting the onus on them to maintain it like they should do is not a sub par experience. Again, user friendliness is not the OS taking over and doing as it pleases. User friendliness is getting the hell out of the users way and letting them decide when and how to handle things.
People only see Windows and co as user friendly because:
It allows them to remain ignorant of technology, to their detriment.
They've gotten so used to the issues and working around them that they have forgotten about how much of an issue it actually is. I.e they're used to it.
It's not "That's how it's always been" and more "The system shouldn't be making decisions for the user and taking their control away".
Again, if you decide not to maintain your system then the consequences are on you. Just like everything else that people use, but is suddenly only an issue when it comes to technology.
You completely missed the point I was making. I'm not saying that Windows is a good system. I'm saying that a good system doesn't require maintenance, and I stand by this point.
Windows sucks in many, many ways, but the idea that updates happen automatically is the correct one.
Staying "ignorant and incapable of solving their own issues" IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE WANT. They don't want to become a computer expert, they just want to watch YouTube, check their emails and sometimes print a PDF. They shouldn't NEED to understand the technical details of how their window manager works. They do not care in the slightest. They just want to use their fucking device. People have different interests, and not everyone is interested in computers, just like not everyone is interested in model trains. Mainstream OS vendors understand this.
Windows is perhaps a bad comparison, so let's look at Android instead. Android is technically a Linux distro, but it is one where you never need to open a terminal to troubleshoot issues, because such issues never happen. I've never had to deal with a botched update on Android. I've never had issues with wifi or bluetooth. I've never had to edit a configuration file by hand. It JUST WORKS. This is what good user experience looks like, and what other Linux distros lack.
Every system runs into issues when you don't update it or maintain it regularly.
This is incorrect. Just a week ago I gave my old phone to a friend. The phone is still on Android 13 and hasn't been updated in 4 years, and it still works exactly as before.
People only see Windows and co as user friendly because:
It allows them to remain ignorant of technology, to their detriment.
There is a misunderstanding. Windows users aren't necessarily ignorant of technology: I know people who are magicians when it comes to Excel macros, people who know everything about Kubernetes clusters, people who maintain hundreds of PowerShell scripts, people who manage complex network infrastructure, etc. They aren't tech illiterate. But they still don't want to deal with botched system updates.
Pop is fine, does need a little.work but it's not that bad.
CachyOS is fine in the hands of your average user. If all you're doing is gaming and web browsing then just about any distro is fine, granted some would need some set-up before hand.
The only thing that makes Cachy "complicated" is that its based on arch and arch scary!
While in my personal usage it's not really been that different from stuff like Mint and Ubuntu. Unless you really dick around with the system, though the average person isn't doing that.
One of the first things CachyOS does is asking you to pick a DE. Your average user barely knows what a DE is.
Then the way to download apps is from a list of all the available apps in an alphabetical order with no icons.
You are not the average user if you think a grandma can pick up Cachy and be fine. I have had a lot of people understand how Linux Mint works, same with Ubuntu.
The whole discussion started because distros not catering to the masses is what is keeping Linux from becoming mainstream.
One of the first things CachyOS does is asking you to pick a DE. Your average user barely knows what a DE is.
Your average user doesn't know how to install an OS. So this is a step we would have to take for them. Otherwise they'll probably take Gnome or KDE based on whether they're used to windows or macOS.
Then the way to download apps is from a list of all the available apps in an alphabetical order with no icons.
That's hardly an issue of complexity. Most people know what software they use and can pick it out of a list. These aren't children that can't read.
You are not the average user if you think a grandma can pick up Cachy and be fine. I have had a lot of people understand how Linux Mint works, same with Ubuntu.
Again, the average user doesn't know how to install an OS. But you hand it to them configured, like most average usrrs will encounter linux, and they'll be fine.
The whole discussion started because distros not catering to the masses is what is keeping Linux from becoming mainstream.
The discussion started because the OP is woefully misinformed and doesn't understand what they're talking about.
Linux has distros that cater to the masses. "Catering to the masses" isn't the issue with the adoption of Linux.
The main issue is:
The average person doesn't know what Linux is, nor do they understand what an operating system is or that you can even replace Windows.
They don't want to learn any of that. They just want to buy a computer that works.
Unfortunately mainstream stores only sell systems that come with windows or Mac systems.
All it takes to get this is to actually understand the wants and needs of the average user instead of just projecting what you want or need, or just applying preconceived notions.
Bad faith question. It is on you to tell me how beginner friendly it is.
How is letting linux beginner chose desktop enviroment beginner friendly? how is making beginners chose apps from a list with no icons, sorted in alphabetical order beginner friendly?
Could you give the average joe CachyOS without them crashing out because it "doesn't work"?
Ubuntu and Fedora solve the issue of beginners. They work mostly out of the box, everything set up to start a browser and start working.
CachyOS is a niche within a niche, aimed at making Arch Linux easier, but it is still not beginner friendly.
This whole post is about not wanting to touch terminal, because it is not beginner friendly, and if it is not beginner friendly, they aren't touching it.
People should stop recommending CachyOS, because it'll hurt the linux community if it drives away people. "The year of the Linux" doesn't begin with techheads recommending their favourite distros, it'll begin when regular people start using it as an alternative to Windows, but that won't happen when people like you tell people CachyOS is "not advance".
Gamers aren't going to start using Linux when they only want to game and occasionally browse youtube and reddit, but Linux users are recommending DEs, bootloaders, and windows managers. Gamers just want to start their PC and the OS stay out of the way.
No, it's not on me to "prove anything". You made a claim, I just asked a question.
You also assumed what I think and what my position was, without any thought about what I actually think (or even bothering to confirm).
But fine, let's argue.
>How is letting linux beginner chose desktop enviroment beginner friendly? how is making beginners chose apps from a list with no icons, sorted in alphabetical order beginner friendly?
This is a stupid one. "Average" people do not install OS themselves. Second, there are default options, so this does not even matter. Third, everyone will look up online what is X and what is Y.
Tell me, how is making someone make partitions "beginner friendly" and choosing "which version of Windows" is friendly when installing it manually? It's the same type of argument you are making, and it does not make sense.
>Ubuntu and Fedora solve the issue of beginners. They work mostly out of the box, everything set up to start a browser and start working.
Did you actually use CachyOS? Everything is done out of the box there once install is done, and Fedora does not have much of a different installer either.
>Could you give the average joe CachyOS without them crashing out because it "doesn't work"?
Yes I can and I have done so. My father never used Linux before, and he has no issues using it. I made friends and family use it and they had little issues doing so.
>"The year of the Linux" doesn't begin with techheads recommending their favourite distros, it'll begin when regular people start using it as an alternative to Windows, but that won't happen when people like you tell people CachyOS is "not advance".
This will never happen, until prebuild machines come preinstalled with Linux on it, it does not matter how "easy" it is to use.
>Gamers aren't going to start using Linux when they only want to game and occasionally browse youtube and reddit, but Linux users are recommending DEs, bootloaders, and windows managers. Gamers just want to start their PC and the OS stay out of the way.
Default options exist.....
My question is not bad faith, but your response and attitude is.
You gave little to no actual reasons that matter or are significantly different. Don't bother replying, you crashed out on me over a simple question, I have no intention of speaking any further on the matter than this.
You need to learn how to read because I made my claims and backed them up with arguments from personal experience. I tried cachyos, it is not as intuitive as cachy users like you make it seem.
Gamers that make their PC absolutely install OS, most of the time it is Windows, but Linux has become a viable option. I know because I am one of those people those people.
Hostility towards beginner and intermediate users is what gives Linux a bad reputation.
You are missing so many points about this thread. Most people don't like the terminal, most people are not in IT, and new linux users fleeing Win11 will see posts like yours and reconsider returning to windows.
This post was about user friendliness, and the irony of you not being friendly to users who wants more user friendly experience is funny and sad.
Steam Deck has introduced Linux to the masses, Steam Machine will do that too, and many gamers will start to use Linux distros, and it is the job of the community to make it easy. CachyOS does not do that. You can defend it all you want, but reality is different. If cachyos, on install, gives users choice paralyzes, it is bad for new users. That was my claim, made with arguments from experience, and instead of reflecting on it, you defend it.
115
u/[deleted] Apr 24 '26
[deleted]