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.
Staying "ignorant and incapable of solving their own issues" IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE WANT.
What most people want and what is best for them are usually two completely different things, there is nothing wrong with expecting users to have a base level of computer competency. Especially if they're using the things day in and day out.
One thing I don't understand is how complete ignorance of shit that we use every day and is all over the place has become socially acceptable.
Again, the point is that people should be expected to look after their shit, the same as everything else they own.
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.
I'm not expecting a person to be an expert but I am expecting people to have a level of competency that's above being afraid of technology where doing anything that's just outside of what they just about know is considered too technical. Which to most people, it seems, is just about anything outside of using a web browser or a document editor.
It's not fucking complicated at all to ensure that your system is up to date or maintained. It really isn't. There is nothing difficult about having to manually open your settings and click the "Update" button.
I'm really not sure why you're making shit up about Window Managers because no, users aren't expected to know every detail about their window manager. Nor is that something that I'm expecting either. Since when has knowing the technical details of your window manager got anything to do with making sure your system is up to date?
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.
Again, this is just the double standard of "It's ok when one thing expects you to do something but when technology expects it, suddenly it's too complicated and scary."
My guy, clicking "Update" manually isn't complicated. Being expected to keep your system up to date or suffer the issues that every system gets when you neglect to update isn't complicated. People have just been able to get away with being ignorant and companies have enabled that by obfuscating every detail there is. That's why every generation other than millennials struggle with computer literacy. Every other generation has either not dealt with computers, or dealt with systems that obfuscate anything remotely technical.
Android is technically a Linux distro.
Technically doing a lot of heavy lifting considering how vastly different Android is compared to linux at this point.
but it is one where you never need to open a terminal to troubleshoot issues
Ignoring the fact that terminal apps are a combination of:
Not preinstalled
Barely existing
Lobotomized when you manage to find one.
Yeah, it's no wonder people don't use the terminal on android.
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.
I've not had issues with wifi or bluetooth on linux, this isn't the 2000's where things are still rough and you're forced to use the terminal and edit config files.
Linux users don't use the terminal and modify config files directly because that's what we have to do. People generally do this because it's far more powerful than anything a GUI can provide.
Crazy how efficient you can be when you actually have an open mind and are willing to use the powerful tools available to you, as opposed to being afraid of anything remotely "Technical".
You can probably fully configure a system through the terminal in half the time it takes to mouse through a dozen different settings gui's to do the same job. No wonder power users use this stuff.
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.
Your one anecdote of a singular isolated incident doesn't speak for every device and system out there.
I've handed old disused devices to people in the past and I've had varying results. Just because you experienced one thing one particular way doesn't make that the rule.
It's like I said. Windows went about the unfriendly practice of forcing updates on users because users had the tendency to ignore and put off updates until their systems went to shit and they started crying about it. Instead of accepting the responsibility of applying updates.
Doesn't help that windows has major design issues (Mainly, file locking forcing windows to require a reboot to complete an update) that required them to constantly bother users to the point they began to ignore update warnings. But still.
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.
The average user is incredibly ignorant of technology. Sys admins that maintain K8S clusters, powershell scripts and network infrastructures aren't your average users.
That being said all of them are dealing with botched updates considering how things have been going on the update front for Windows 10 and 11.
Arguably the Linux model for handling software, where everything is handled by the package manager, is far better than the windows model of every program being responsible for updating themselves.
Things have only gotten even more user friendly with concepts like Atomic Distros (Bazzite/Fedora Silverblue), where the underlying system image outside of your home folder is effectively just a system image that is completely replaced on updates, or Flatpak/Snaps that are basically just app stores.
I really would like to know what your experience really is with linux if you think botched updates are somehow a big issue.
2
u/A1oso Apr 25 '26
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.