So I was reading a comment where someone said that Windows is sure as hell not polished, just 'psychologically pleasing.' I get that, and I've tried to main with Mint Cinnamon/KDE for a while, and I've tried so many distro, but I have too many issues with Linux to make it a true daily workstation and personal os.

For example, Windows apps typically have installers, graphical ones, which allow you to choose an install location and stuff. Does apt or yum do that? Not unless you use some crazy parametets or some shit.

Okay, fine, what if you DON'T CARE about everything being open source and you just want your 3-monitor Nvidia setup to work without vsync issues? Also a PITA, need to do either cmdline driver install and co fig or some other complicated shit.

I may be considered a power user, but damn if Linux isn't friendly to windows users. Don't get me wrong, I don't like windows, but so far it's the best option for me versus aillion Linux issues. Get me something that functions like Windows on multiple levels (Aesthetic not completely required, but core functionality of programs is.) and only then can I attempt a full migration.

  • 2
    Been reading up a bit on which linux distro to go with as my first and what I notice is every article and vid is always about how pretty the stupid thing is. "You can put lipstick on a pig" is the appropriate saying with linux.

    But still going to convert and i have decided on archmerge over manjaro the archmerge guy is really doing a lot of effort and approaching it from a new user perspective.
  • 3
    @Charon92 PuTTY or the relatively new yet amazing WSL.
  • 4
    @Charon92 Windows Subsystem for Linux, a.k.a. bash on Ubuntu on windows. Essentially a Linux terminal within windows, just by running bash.
  • 2
    You’re mostly saying that linux sucks because you can’t use it like you use windows. Its a completely different OS and if you want to take advantage of its features you have to get used to doing things the linux way. Most distributions don’t install applications in a single folder, but spread its components out over multiple folders in the filesystem. It is done like this to keep the filesystem clean and make a clear distinction between libraries, documentation, executables and configuration files. Installing programs this way also makes it possible for applications to share libraries, which means not having the same library installed twice for different applications. When it comes to dependency management and file system hierarchy, Linux is, in my opinion, actually far superior to windows.
  • 1
    Also, the windows command line just doesn’t cut it compared to linux. WSL is too limited and not well integrated, powershell is too verbose and the DOS based cmd.exe is just, well... too DOS based for modern use. That might not be an issue for you because you’re probably fine with clicking buttons all the time, but for someone who practically lives inside a terminal window like me, its a huge plus on the linux side. The command line is not inferior to GUIs, Its just a different way of interacting with your computer.
  • 2
    These are of course just my opinions, and I’m not trying to start a war, I’m just trying to say: if you like the way windows works so much and don’t want to interact with your computer in a different way, and you also don’t care about the open source part, why would you try to use anything other than windows?

    I don’t think you’ve given linux a fair chance to begin with, as you are measuring its quality by its similaritiy to windows, not by the features it actually offers.
Add Comment