Skip Navigation

Why is Linux so frustrating for some people?

Don't get me wrong. I love Linux and FOSS. I have been using and installing distros on my own since I was 12. Now that I'm working in tech-related positions, after the Reddit migration happened, etc. I recovered my interest in all the Linux environment. I use Ubuntu as my main operating system in my Desktop, but I always end up feeling very limited. There's always software I can't use properly (and not just Windows stuff), some stuff badly configured with weird error messages... last time I was not able to even use the apt command. Sometimes I lack time and energy for troubleshooting and sometimes I just fail at it.

I usually end up in need of redoing a fresh install until it breaks up again. Maybe Linux is not good for beginners working full time? Maybe we should do something like that Cisco course that teaches you the basic commands?

577 comments
  • Linux user here, also once upon a time a Windows admin. I think the most difficult thing for most users is not that Linux is difficult, but that it is different.

    Take PopOS for example. For the average "I check email and surf the web" user, it works wonderfully. But most people grew on Windows or Mac so its just not what they're used to. Linux is kind of the stick shift to Windows and Mac's automatic transmission... its not hard to learn, but most folk don't choose to make the effort because they don't need to.

  • The following sums up my experience with Linux thus far: "It's never been easier for the newb to jump right in, but heavens help them if they ever stray from the straight path".

    There's been a lot of effort to make things easier for a newb (used to Windows and all that shit) to do what they need to do in most cases. There's been all sorts of GUI-based stuff that means for the 'average' user, there's really no need for them to interact with the command line. That's all well and good until you need to do something that wasn't accounted for by the devs or contributors.

    All of a sudden, you'd have not only to use the command line, you may also have to consult one of the following:

    • Well-meaning, easy to understand, but ultimately unhelpfully shallow help pages (looking at you, Libre Office), or the opposite: deep, dense, and confusing (Arch) Wiki pages.
    • One of the myriads of forum pages each telling the user to RTFM, "program the damned thing yourself", "go back to Windows", all of the above, or something else that delivers the same unhelpful message.
    • Ultra-dense and technical man pages of a command that might possibly be of help.

    And that's already assuming you've got a good idea of what the problem was, or what it is that you are to do. Trouble-shooting is another thing entirely. While it's true that Linux has tons of ways to make troubleshooting a lot easier, such as logs, reading through them is a skill a lot of us don't have, and can't be expected of some newb coming from Windows.

    To be fair to Linux though, 90% of the time, things are well and good. 9% of the time, there's a problem here and there, but you're able to resolve it with a little bit of (online) help, despite how aggravating some of that "help" might be. 1% of the time, however, Linux will really test your patience, tolerance, and overall character.

    Unfortunately, it's that 10% that gives Linux its "hard to use" reputation, and the 1% gives enough scary stories for people to share.

    • This is all fair complaints about Linux, but I don't really feel like windows is much better. I've had windows break on me or family members a lot over the years. Sure I've had some Linux distros break with an update and fail to boot (namely Manjaro), but windows has broken itself with updates dozens of times for me. The whole reason I started using Linux at all was because windows was breaking so often on my computer that I needed to try Linux to make sure my hardware wasn't defective.

      You talk about having to fall back on the command line in Linux, but that's also true on windows without 3rd party software. I've had to use windows command line utilities to fix drives with messed up partitions and to try to repair my windows install after windows update broke it. A couple weeks ago I had to help a friend on windows do checksums using the windows command line because windows doesn't support that through the gui. Meanwhile dolphin on KDE let's you do checksums in the gui from the file properties screen.

      I honestly feel like Linux isn't really that much harder or more prone to breaking than windows, people just have less experience with it. The smaller user base means there's a lot less help available online as well.

      • Same! What pushed me to Ubuntu was that Windows broke like three times in major ways in the span of a few days. One time, Windows update... disappeared bootmgr.exe. Another time, Windows bug checked after a few minutes of use. Yet another time, Windows update broke the boot partition. idk if that's exactly what happened, but point is the issues were big. How this happened in the span of like 3 days is baffling to me, considering I installed Windows from scratch each time.

      • I was typing an earlier version of my reply to you when it got lost in the aether. Sorry, but I forgot about this bit which I shall be putting in a separate reply.

        people just have less experience with it. The smaller user base means there’s a lot less help available online as well.

        I agree with this, wholeheartedly. However, I think those who use Linux are a self-selecting sort. This means, unfortunately, that the type of person who might be able to best help a "typical Linux newb coming from Windows" isn't using Linux in the first place, or have already gone long past the point of being able to be in a mindset best suited to help.

      • What I just said, on the whole, isn't exclusive to Linux and can be applied to Windows as well (maybe except the "go back to Windows" mantra, and possibly the RTFM culture of Linux—but then again, the general refrain of LMGTFY is common enough for one to argue that a similar complaint exists in Windows as well).

        Having to fall back to the command-line, however, is generally a rare experience in Windows. I personally never have had any need to. However, that's mostly because I was never a power user in Windows, and I've never had any experience like having to fix messed-up partitions. Windows have its own set of problems too, like the registry system.

        Whatever my complaints about Linux might be, it doesn't make Windows any better. I am still daily-driving Linux for a reason (or several).

        The 90%, 10% and 1% thing I said at the end applies to Windows as well. It is a general rule of thumb I've mentioned to highlight that, the scary things oft-talked about Linux are a small percentage of what a user might encounter. And it's even less, probably non-existent, if you stick to the "straight and narrow."

  • There's a lot of little things to you need to learn, that you don't learn until actually messing around with in Linux which absolutely make or break your experience with Linux, and that Linux users will mock you for asking about.

    For a lot of people windows just works how they want it, so when they're convinced to switch by a friend/family member/youtuber they now have to relearn what was incredibly easy for them, which absolutely will cause frustrations regardless.

    And a lot of Linux dudes get really defensive and elitist when you ask them to explain or help, like screaming that you're afraid of the command line when you've just never needed to use it before. So the initial learning curve is rough, to het more or less what you had before(For an avg user)

    Like. I'm sorry, but having an issue keeping you from using your pc, and only getting advice to read the documentation of the distro, when you could have just kept windows, is going to frustrate people

    • The command line is always going to turn people away from Linux. I've only had to use the command line to fix a windows issue once in the past 10 years while I regularly have to use it every time I have to work with Linux.

      People like convenience and will almost always go with the more convenient option even if it's not the best option.

      Until the majority of issues can be solved using point and click (and help forums show that method over command line), Linux will always lag behind Mac and Windows.

  • My first experience with linux was Ubuntu. Sue me, it was listed under most "most user friendly distro" listicles when I wasn't smart enough to realize those were mostly marketing.

    It worked fine for my purposes, though it took getting used to, but it would wake itself up from sleep after a few minutes. I would have to shut it off at night so that I wouldn't wake up in a panic as an eerie light emanated through the room from my closed laptop. I did my best searching for the problem, but could never find a solution that worked; in retrospect, I probably just didn't have the language to adequately describe the problem.

    Nothing about the GUI was well-documented to the degree that CLI apps were. If I needed to make any changes, there would be like one grainy video on youtube that showed what apps to open and buttons to click and failed to solve my problem, but a dozen Stack Exchange articles telling me exactly what to do via the terminal.

    I remember going off on some friends online when they tried to convince me Linux and the terminal were superior. I ranted about how this stupid sleep issue was indicative of larger, more annoying problems that drove potential users away. I raged about how hostile to users this esoteric nerds-only UX is. I cried about Windows could be better for everyone if the most computer-adept people would stop jumping ship for mediocre OSes.

    I met another friend who used Arch (btw) within a year from that hissy fit, and she fixed my laptop within minutes. Using a CLI app nonetheless. I grumbled angrily to myself.

    A few years later and everyone's home all the time for some reason, and I get the wild idea that I'm going to be a(n ethical) hacker for whatever reason. I then proceeded to install Kali on a VM and the rest is history.

    The point being that some people labor under the misguided belief that technology should conform to the users, and because we were mostly raised on Windows or Mac, we develop the misconception that those interfaces are "intuitive" (solely because we learned them during the best time in our life to pick up new skills). Then you try to move to linux for whatever reason and everything works differently and the process is jarring and noticeably requires the user conforming to the technology--i.e. changing bad habits learned from other OSes to fit the new one. The lucky few of us go on to learn many other OSes and start to see beyond the specifics to the abstract ideas similar to all of them, then it doesn't matter if you have to work with iOS or TempleOS, you understand the basics of how it all fits together.

    TL;DR Category theorists must be the least frustrated people alive

  • If you want a fair comparison between Windows, MacOS and Linux then I think its wrong to compare distros that don't come pre-installed when you buy your device.

    Not one single MacBook owner had to install their OS and configure drivers etc. None of my family, friends or coworkers had to install Windows on any of their PCs (I know that some people do but not in any of my social circles).

    Consider Pop_OS from System76 or Tuxedo OS from Tuxedo Computers, they have identical user experiences as Mac or PC:

    Step 1: Buy computer Step 2: Turn on Step 3: Answer some one time setup questions Step 4: Get on with your life

    If you have the opportunity to build your own PC and fresh install an OS from scratch then when you come across a problem that you don't have experience with you will be understandably frustrated.

    Specifically Windows has the advantage that hardware manufactures always make drivers for Windows. If your hardware is supported then the Linux OS installation is not very different, but when the hardware is not plug-and-play then configuring Linux becomes its own kind of frustration torture.

    TL;DR Get your computer with the OS already installed, then Linux is no more frustrating than a Mac or PC. Install Linux yourself and your mileage may vary.

    • Yep which is why if you wanna try Linux I'd say get a Steamdeck. At the very least, you won't have to deal with driver/hardware problems. Lead with the hardware and the software will follow. Certainly worked pretty well for Apple.

  • I've been using Linux for so long that it's hard for me to give an approximation of what a new user might find challenging, but I think that something important to remember is that computers are hard. I've spent my entire life studying computers and I'm still learning every day.

    Most people grew up with Windows and learned how to use it over the years, but remember that it took years, and most of them still aren't very good at it. Linux requires different knowledge than Windows, but it doesn't inherently mean that it's harder. If everyone grew up using Linux we wouldn't hear about "how hard Linux is" but instead about "how hard Windows is".

    At least when something is broken in Linux, it probably has a cause (usually the user) and solution, and a way to debug what happened. When something breaks in Windows you've got about 3 things you can try before the solution is to reinstall.

    As for solutions, I don't know if there's a certified pathway into Linux - I think installing something like Linux Mint and just using it like a computer would go a long way towards getting you comfortable with how Linux works without forcing you to study. Once you're comfortable using the GUI, you can take a peek behind the scenes at your leisure - there is documentation everywhere for everything on Linux.

    • When something breaks in Windows you’ve got about 3 things you can try before the solution is to reinstall.

      From the point of view of a lifetime Windows guy, I have to disagree with this. Unless you have a malware problem (where it can be exceedingly difficult for the average user to know whether they've gotten everything out), almost all failures of Windows in the modern age are the result of hardware failures. If your Windows 7 or newer computer blue screens, it's very likely a bad piece of hardware, occasionally a bad driver. The OS itself is quite solid.

      ... there is documentation everywhere for everything on Linux.

      In my experience and perspective, I've found the documentation for Linux things to be of varying quality and usually for an audience who already knows their way around Linux. Admittedly, I haven't had to go looking in quite a while, so maybe that landscape is different today than I am aware of - but when I was looking, I found myself quite frustrated more often than not.

      Finally, with Windows, if you really have to, you can pay for support incidents from Microsoft. They're not cheap, but I've found their server and server application support to be reliable. Is there something like that available to a Linux user?

      • I don't have a ton of experience with Windows lately, but from trying to troubleshoot family members' PCs, it usually ends up being corrupted drivers or bricked bootloaders/failed updates.

        As for documentation, the Arch wiki (and Gentoo wiki, Debian wiki, etc. etc.) is usually a good source of information for general topics, but there's also decades of forums and stackexchange posts on various problems if you're just using a search engine. Every program also has extensive official man pages on how to use them (example), and you can even use something like tldr to shorten the man pages into something usable right now (example). If you're willing to read documentation, everything you use on Linux probably has a manual behind it.

        With regards to paying for support, it's not really my wheelhouse but to my understanding that's what companies like Canonical, SUSE, and Red Hat offer.

      • | If your Windows 7 or newer computer blue screens, it's very likely a bad piece of hardware, occasionally a bad driver. The OS itself is quite solid.

        Okay, really, though? Windows is solid and good because it doesn't kernel panic much? Who's getting kernel panics out of Linux without faulty hardware or doing something risky? I think you've equivocated a bit here: either we're comparing kernel to kernel or we're comparing userland to userland. You're comparing Windows itself to Linux userland or using some kernel even freakier than the weird patched-up stuff I like to play with.

        I feel like discussion of this topic is plagued by double standards and shifting goalposts :- Apples to oranges comparisons, refusals to even consider things just because they're 'foreign,' blaming "Linux" for things that really aren't its fault (neither in the OS sense nor in the broader sense) ... including of course (sometimes) turning the discussion into an "us versus them" thing. Software on Linux has iffy documentation! ... But the same software exists on Windows, or the equivalent(s) is(/are) just as bad. Linux kernel documentation is scary or weird! ... But no one relevant is touching it anyway and wasn't touching Windows kernel anything either. The UI is different! Yeah, so's the new one on every version of Windows you get forced into. Casual Windowsers all hate it every time but somehow "Linux" is unusable because they won't learn a new UI unless Microsoft tells them to.

        You can buy (a licence to, if MS likes you lots, borrow) a copy of Windows and apparently buy support for it too... yeah okay, but that's business, not a software issue. There are enterprise distros and software packages with all' that business-type support, unless they've all vanished? That's how that stuff works, no?

        I'm not demanding anyone switch and distro hop over the course of months to find a distro they love but I'd really prefer to see some more fairness discussing the matter. "Linux" is never going to be "usable on desktop" if it's always just the enemy to be spurned and derided.

        (Also, sorry this got so wordy. It's not meant as a diatribe, just I feel like there's a lot to say and I'm not saying much of it 🤷‍♀)
        TLDR: It's unfair or outright dishonest to blame an apple for not being tart enough and hide that your actual standard is "is it an orange."

    • When Windows 3.1 came out I had a hard time understanding any of it and never left my cozy DOS CLI with its Norton Commander.

      Granted I was still a child, but one might think that mouse-first and colorfulness would have driven my curiosity. Instead I switched when Windows 95 arrived.

    • I’ve been using Linux for so long that it’s hard for me to give an approximation of what a new user might find challenging

      The average person would fail on step 0 of Installing the OS. In fact 90% of the problem could be attributed to Linux distros not coming preinstalled on PCs sitting in big box stores.

      All of Linux's success stories for the average user (Android, Steam Deck, Chrome book) have one thing in common. They are low cost, simple, purpose built for very specific tasks with a bunch of exclusive games/software that people want to use. We need to start looking at PCs almost like they are highly moddable game consoles. It should come with the expectation that most users don't want to leave the comfort of the walled garden.

  • I think it is a mix of closed mindedness and unfair metrics.

    Like no one would say that Windows sucks because it cannot run Final Cut Pro, but that standard gets put on Linux all the time.

    As far as intuitive that has to do with context. Going from Windows to macOS or in reverse is also going to take some getting used to.

    • Linux, even compared to windows, often doesn make things "easy".

      Mac by comparison makes things incredibly easy, often as the detriment to customization options. But they have really made things like security very well integrated and behind the scenes. You can do Full Disk Encryption in a fairly secure manner with a simple check box. On windows its a bit tougher, normally more of a click through session where they try and make it easier, but give you options to retain the keys yourself at your own risk.

      linux...its fairly easy during install. Post installl....basically not possible and for some you have to run through a guide like this: https://mutschler.dev/linux/pop-os-btrfs-22-04/

      Thats straight up not digestable for 99% of the world.

      Similarly mac makes backups a goddam breeze. Windows is a bit harder but theres a lot of developed software to knock it out thats very good and relatively simple. Linux....well see the guide above as well.

      There are places macOS falls short. For example docking stations are a fucking mess and tied to the processor version in new iterations. Ie: You need a M2-pro for 2+ screens. M2 ultra for higher resolutions iirc and a M1/M2 standard can only do a single screen. Theres also Thunderbolt considerations. Its so goddam convoluted we bought dell displaylink docs for most at work.

      There are also places windows does well. AD and group policy in a corporate environment are awesome. Simply unrivaled. For someone that plays video games. Windows excels at video games, egpus are legit hotpluggable, drivers are unrivaled there. Linux is getting better than ever but even still. Fired up steam on my Pop_OS and cant get games to launch, even when they show as usabled in protondb.

      Linux is unrivaled with options and customization though. But not a whole lot else on the desktop space. On the server side, they are pretty goddam solid from a stability and performance standpoint.

  • Nearly everyone forgets how hard windows was to learn initially.

    I spent the better part of a child hood and the first 10 years of an IT career learning it. Does that sound like a simple or easy system? Conversely I've spent slightly less time but an equal 10 years of an IT career learning and supporting Linux. I've only recently in the last 3 or so years started to feel like I truly grasp Linux and started using it as a daily driver on personal machines.

    I now find Windows absolutely horrible to work with. All the nonsense MS foists on it's users. The inflexibility. The weird choices. The licensing nonsense.

    The bottom line is not that Linux is harder. It's that Linux is different and different is scary and uncomfortable. Different is hard, not linux. People are lazy and creatures of habit. We like familiar. Few of us actually enjoy the work of learning something new that isn't easy. If we did more of us would probably be pilots or engineers or whatever hard thing to learn you want to choose.

    If you're into computers and you still find it hard or constraining keep at it. The Ah, ha! moment is coming. There's a paradigm shift in thinking you'll hit and suddenly you'll get it. When you do you'll find it's magnificent and powerful and freeing.

  • In my experience, when Linux works, it’s beautiful (yay package managers). But once you have an issue or go off the beaten path, it can get complex and confusing very quickly. You’ll find a perfect fix… oh wait, that’s for Red Hat. This is Ubuntu and everything is different.

    This man page is thirty pages long and has in depth descriptions of all fifty switches in alphabetical order, but all i want is an example on how to do a very simple, common thing with it. And of course, all commands have their own syntax (of course windows isn’t any better, outside of Powershell).

    Don’t curl to bash, it’s dangerous. But heaven help the adventurer that tries to do the install manually. And building from the source? Hah!

    The registry gets a ton of shit, and yes, it can be opaque and confusing, but hundreds of text files in hundreds of random directories (that might be a different place on a different distro), all with their own syntax, isn’t necessarily all that more intuitive.

    You want this to work differently? Then code a fix yourself! What do you mean you’re not a programmer?

    I had multiple Ubuntu installs stop updating because the installer by default made the /boot partition (IIRC) something like 100MB. Do a couple updates and that gets filled up with unused files, and then apt craps itself. And this wasn’t all too long ago - well after the point it was supposed to be the district for the everyman.

    Like you, I want to like it more, but it’s never smooth sailing. Granted, a lot of that is familiarity with Windows (and believe me, many curses have been thrown MS’s way), but it always seems to turn into a struggle.

    • Not just "oh this is for redhat and I'm on Ubuntu" but what I run into all the time is that you find a perfect guide but it turns out to be for the wrong version of Ubuntu. So most of it works until you get half way through and you get an error because they've switched from initd to systemd or something. Then you are stuck, do you try to roll back what you've done so far? Try to adapt the instructions to the new system? Then you end up chasing your tail down rabbit holes of what is backwards compatible, what isn't, what can coexist and what can't, etc etc etc.

      If you have been using a particular distro and are familiar with the subsystems then the new version comes out and you just have to learn about the few changes in the release but for someone new it adds a whole second layer of complexity to have to learn the whole new OS in addition to trying to blindly figure out how the old system worked, what's different in the new system and how you adapt instructions from the old one to the new one, or if you should just give up and try to find a different guide that will work.

    • This man page is thirty pages long and has in depth descriptions of all fifty switches in alphabetical order, but all i want is an example on how to do a very simple, common thing with it. And of course, all commands have their own syntax (of course windows isn’t any better, outside of Powershell).

      Yes man is intended to be a manual so it's understandably bad at being a cheatsheet. Check out tldr or tealdeer. They are similar but I found tealdeer to be much faster for me. Also try a shell with better completion than bash, like zsh or fish. Having better completion will sometimes sidestep the need for a cheatsheet altogether.

      Don’t curl to bash, it’s dangerous.

      You can curl the file normally, inspect, and then run it with bash. All the safety issues of running stuff you found online still apply (is the source trusted?), but you don't get the issues that arise specifically from piping curl to bash. But most applications don't need you to curl | bash in the first time because of package managers.

  • I think the answer to your question about why it’s frustrating for some people and not others has a lot to do with use case.

    One use case that easily makes Linux way less frustrating is of developing software, especially in low-level languages. If you’re writing and debugging software, reading documentation is something you do every day, which makes it a lot easier. Most of the issues where people break their systems, don’t know how it happened, and can’t figure out how to fix it are because they default to copying bash commands from a Wordpress blog from 2007 instead of actually reading the documentation for their system. If you’re developing software, a log of the software you’re installing and using is open source, so you benefit tremendously from a package manager that’s baked into the OS.

    If your use case is anything like that, Windows in particular is way more frustrating to use IMO.

    If instead your use case is using a web browser and a collection of proprietary closed-source GUI tools, then most of the benefits that you’re getting using Linux are more ephemeral. You get the benefit of using a free and open source OS, not being tied into something that built to spy on you, not supporting companies that use copyrights to limit the free access of information and tools, etc. Those benefits are great and super important, and I would still recommend Linux if you’re up to it, but they definitely don’t make computing any easier.

    If your use case is anything like the second one, you’re probably used to following online guides without needing to understand how each step works, and you’re probably used to expecting that software will make it hard for you to break it in a meaningful way. Both of those things directly contribute to making Linux might be frustrating to use at times for you.

    If you’re in the second category, the best advice is to get used to going to the official webpage for the applications you use and actually reading the docs. When you run into a problem, try to find information about it the docs. It’s fine to use guides or other resources, but whenever you do, try to look up the docs for the commands that you’re using and actually understand what you’re doing. RTFM is a thing for a reason haha.

  • I'm a lifelong windows power user, and above average even in my industry for knowledge on technical expertise.

    Nothing I know translates to Linux. Not the file structures, the commands, the permissions, the file systems.

    You truly have to commit to learning an entirely parallel form of computing environment to become comfortable in Linux. And being frank, it is the most customizable and unique user experience out there, but it is also infinitely less user friendly. And for every time a 2 line terminal command fixes a problem and saves time compared with windows, there are dozens of instances where time is wasted for hours learning that command, its exact syntax and usage, and if it is the one you need for your circumstance.

    Another user here recently said that it was when they were going through and compiling their own drivers to make their Webcam work and having to follow guides to make system specific tweaks that they just quit and went back to Windows for ease of use.

    Linux is the OS of power users. Not even power users like me, but extreme power users who either have the time or training to learn that parallel system. All of which is easy if this is your job, but in many ways you are learning a second language of sorts.

  • As a linux noob, I can't give some in depth explanation, but I can empathize over troubles troubleshooting 😭

    I mean, to first acknowledge the base difficulties of just getting used to a new operating system that doesn't want to hold your hand, all the troubleshooting advice being splintered across multiple distros and updates, and most software just not being designed to be compatible with Linux, it's impressive there are distros that manage to be beginner-friendly-ish in the first place.

    For instance, when I was setting up Ubuntu, the following didn't work out of the box:

    • The general need to reinstall every program you use
    • The microphone
    • Switching between Windows and Ubuntu led to a weird time difference on Window's part (it still does)
    • My fingerprint sensor stopped working (I don't even think this is fixable)
    • My brightness hotkeys stopped working (they still don't)
    • touchpad scrolling was really fast (I honestly just got used to this rather than fixing it)
    • Increased the icon size of a lot of things
    • Set up night light settings

    But more than that, I'd say one of the hardest things about Linux is that it is so customizable it inspires me to find a solution to issues I would've just ignored on Windows. For example:

    • I moved the time bar from the top of the screen to the bottom
    • Set up my own searx instance (though I hardly use it, if anyone knows how to run a set of code on computer startup please lmk)
    • Installed wine, Lutris, and software to support Linux gaming
    • Set my wallpaper to rotate between a bunch of landscape photos

    But ig that's just my 2 cents. Really I wrote this to feel proud of myself for all the troubleshooting I've done 😭

    Edit: I frfr love all yall who responded to this with genuine advice, what a great community

  • Ubuntu LTS almost never does the things described without user intervention. E.g. breaking over time, apt not working. The most important thing I learned about Linux and Ubuntu was that I was breaking it. Once I drilled that into my head and began learning what not to do, it stopped breaking over time. My main system hasn't been reinstalled since 2016. And that's only because I was bored and reinstalled it at the time. Friends have Ubuntu LTS systems that they've had woking for over a decade, moved over several hardware configs during that time.

    With that I have this advice for the newer users:

    • Use Ubuntu LTS. Almost everything else has an extra level of complexity or several that aren't obvious when you first start using them. Yes even user-friendly Ubuntu derivatives. Ubuntu LTS has an extremely large test base so defects are few. It's also stable so the number of defects generally declines over time for a given release.
    • Use the canonical sources of information for Ubuntu. Askubuntu.com, the Ubuntu wiki, the Ubuntu forums, man pages. The Debian wiki can be useful too. Arch'es wiki becomes useful when you begin to know what you're doing so you can translate what's there to Ubuntu.
    • Don't use YouTube for that or random sites that have SEOd themselves to the top of Google. Or ChatGPT.
    • The first question you should ask when something breaks is "What did I do wrong?". Trace your steps. Answer it. Fix it and don't do it again. E.g. something that should work without sudo doesn't, so you run it with sudo. A true classic.

    I know many here won't like me suggesting Ubuntu, but the reality is that throwing new users elsewhere is often a disservice to them. Even Debian, which I use too. The proliferation of "Ubuntu bad" across the newer slivers of the community has been just "bad" for those new users. There's a lot of us that can help support new users but we can't do that in places where the "Just try X distro instead" comments outnumber us 10 to 1. In addition there's so much misinformation thrown around as fact that we just can't compete. The D-K level is too damn high.jpg

    Source: I've used Linux for 19-years and professionally since 2012, for more use cases than I can count.

  • @leninmummy I've found that many new users can't be bothered to learn new things and don't understand enough about their situation to explain the problem they're having. What they are looking for is someone to simply give them the answer so they can carry on. Many times they'll wind up looking for an answer to a generic question related to, "this doesn't work", and find a generic answer that doesn't work or breaks something when they copy and paste it to their system.

  • As a mostly windows user, I've tried a few times, using various distributions. When buying my last pc and installing a popular linux distribution, it did not recognise my network card at all. Researching online told me I had to compile the drivers myself, since my distri did not have any shipped with it yet. ...which is pretty hard, having no internet access because of the network card not working. To be fair, that was ~8 years ago.

    For non-tech users, I feel like some parts are still pretty hard to diagnose. If an issue arises you mostly have to touch the command line and I can understand people being scared of it, having to edit plain text files, or type and enter commands that aren't descriptive, much less finding the right command by guessing. It certainly improved, with GUIs being available for most stuff, but if you want something specific, is still feels pretty rough on the edges sometimes, from the eyes of a normal user.

    If you mostly need your basic apps, like browser, some office apps or a music player it works great, though.

    • IMHO driver issues are not normally a problem anymore. I have a ton of random USB stuff plugged into my Ubuntu desktop and it all just works. Like USB display adapters and studio interfaces. My nivida card works fine too w steam for gaming.

      • I had a bad time with ubuntu 18 lts and Bluetooth. Neither bluez nor the other one (forget which) would recognise the controller in my mobo. Tried the man pages. Searched high and low. Asked for help on the forums - got nothing. Decided to never again try using Linux for my workstation. I'm perfectly happy to use it to run my scripts, daemons and containers on a dedicated box, but there's just no upside for my games and work machine.

  • I have the exact opposite problem. Windows is an unstable bloated mess I don't understand. Linux just works.

    I use a Mac for work, and it's alright, but it's got it's janky parts (key bindings, and being forced to drag and drop things for instance)

  • I love using WSL, and am pretty used to (and prefer) the Linux terminal experience.

    However, I wasn't able to switch from Windows. I've always ran into issues that I just wasn't able to solve.

    You want your work email and Teams? Too bad, Teams are no longer build for Linux, but you can use this shitty webapp or whatever it was. Want your mail? Sure, there are apps that can connect to exchange, but too bad - your domain policies don't allow you to use them, so you're stuck with O365 on web.

    Ok, web it is. Now let's connect to VPN so I can start working. Oh, too bad, your company uses Checkpoint mobile, which dropped client support for Linux. And while it looks like there is some obscure way how to get it working through IPSEC or whatever, I never managed to get it working - and I think it also requires the VPN server to actually enable support for it, which I'm sure our company doesn't have. And then there's also the fact that we just use Word and Excel for most of what we do.

    Well then, I guess I'm not going to be able to switch to Linux for work. But I can at least use it for my PC at home, where I just need to be able to develop Unity games, and the rest should be all right.

    After spending few hours trying to get my project to build, finding out that you just can't use certain kind of video formats on Unity on Linux, and running into issues with both the Hub and the Editor just throwing random UI errors, I've just given up. Especially since there are things like multipass or WSL, and I only ever need linux for terminal anyway, where I never had any issues.

  • While I'm fine with Linux most of the time, the few times I got frustrated with Linux was when I was following instructions and getting different results because either information was wrong or there were steps that weren't included. A few examples I can think of are:

    1. There are a lot of games that I've played (mainly from Itch) that offer a Linux version, but that version isn't tested and often times has mismatched libraries. In one case, they forgot to bundle the Linux version with the game's assets and only included the executable.
    2. A lot of Linux installation guides just tell you that you can just install the distro from it's LiveCD. Maybe this is the case for some computers but every computer that I've installed Linux onto required some extra steps. I've always had to disable secure boot and then re-enable it after installing but I've never seen a guide mention that, just some random answers on askubuntu that suggested it. They also never mention that you should use the LiveCD to make sure that everything is working properly.
    3. There are some emulators that I've never gotten the Linux versions of to work properly and I can only get the Windows versions to work properly. PCem keeps telling me it can't find any bios even though I put them into the specified folder. Mesen (the pre-Mesen2 version) runs but I can't change any of the settings and the only documentation that exists is for the Windows version.
  • I remember feeling really limited on GNU/Linux; for me, it was the desktop environment. Switching to KDE Plasma gave me back the kind of power and usability I was used to from the GUI.

    Besides that, always be sure you're following tutorials for your specific distro, and a recent version at that. In my early days, I borked my system many times by pasting commands I didn't understand meant for other distros or older versions of the distro I was running.

    On software, I would recommend trying to find FLOSS replacements wherever possible. People often sell Linux as being able to run most windows software, and while that's true, you'll almost always have a better experience after taking the time to learn a FLOSS tool written for the platform. Even with proprietary native applications, companies often consider GNU/Linux an afterthought and the experience suffers. If you're using KDE Plasma, for example, try finding a KDE app at apps.kde.org.

    For a distro billed as beginner friendly, I always had issues with Ubuntu too. The most trouble free distros I've ever used were Manjaro (which I still use to this day on machines I want to just work out of the box - ignore the hate), and Mint. Manjaro comes with an official KDE Plasma verson too.

  • It sounds like you have the time to diagnose Linux issues, that's my main holdup. Even basic stuff takes a lot of time to learn since there's often not a simple gui to toggle a setting and see if it fixes an issue.

577 comments