I only ever use Windows on my work computer, and only when I need access to a resource that requires our Windows-only VPN.
But seriously, “just use linux” is worthless advice. Lots of people use Windows for specific applications that don’t exist in the Linux ecosystem. For example, there are no Linux applications that come close to AutoCAD, and it simply doesn’t work on Linux.
Better advice would be to get new (or newer used) hardware if possible, if you absolutely need to use Windows, since this workaround will inevitably be “corrected” by Microsoft. Then you can do whatever you like with the old hardware, such as install and learn Linux at your own pace.
“just use linux” is great advice. Not everybody has the money for PC upgrades. And the amount of people that require specific Windows programs and can not switch to an alternative that works on Linux is extremely small.
Which distros to choose, what are their pros and cons, which distros works best with whatever hardware they have? What about which of their existing hardware doesn’t work on Linux? Which of the software they use everyday and probably have spent money on the licenses doesn’t work on Linux at all and which can kinda work using WINE?
These are all questions that are not easily answered by people that lack the prior knowledge of Linux. Just saying “use Linux” is not simply useless advice if you don’t know their use case or the hardware they use, it’s practically harming the first time experience of non-tech savvy people with Linux.
if you don’t know their use case or the hardware they use
Most hardware will work ootb, most use cases is opening the browser. But i do agree a blank “use Linux” is a bit too broad. Something like “Use Mint” or “Use Fedora” is better.
That’s hilarious. Just because you have experience with Linux doesn’t make it easier to use, either. And 90% of people in the workplace has experience with Windows and Windows only, so that means the majority of people already can use Windows easier even if both OSes are equally easy to use.
Considering all my experience with using Linux has been painful, I don’t believe you when you say Linux is easier. I can Google any issue to do with Windows and find the solution without delving too deeply. You know what happened the last time I tried to find the driver for the wifi card in my laptop for Linux? I had to find an obscure website that lists third party drivers for Linux only to find that it doesn’t exist for my specific card. The card that works flawlessly in Windows.
Imagine not having that knowledge before jumping all in on installing Linux. Most of the people in my office would’ve already sworn off Linux forever the moment they encounter such setback, especially if they were being lied to about the level of difficulty they would face.
It actually is easier. Especially the last few years. Almost every wifi driver and whatever you want just works out of the box. It has stores that are actually worth using, like the Gnome store. It has everything you want for a modern OS.
You should really try Linux again. Something like Ubuntu or Mint is so noob friendly you can do whatever you want without even opening the terminal.
My point still stands. I said that it’s objectively easier to use. Somebody with more Windows experience will have less trouble with Windows. But people that aren’t versed in computers will find a noob friendly distro much less confusing and easier to use than the turd that is Windows 11.
I have used Windows 95, 97, ME, XP, Vista, 8, 10, 11 and a few Server ones. I have used Ubuntu, Mint, Debian, and many others, with Desktop Environments and headless as well. I have also used a few Macbooks, albeit very limited. And as I said, objectively, Ubuntu and Mint are just much simpler to use than the newer versions of Windows or Mac.
Who’s coping here when you’re the one completely dismissing my own experience with using Linux. That’s not a good look for someone supposedly giving ‘good’ advice.
That experience I had was from earlier this year, btw, so don’t tell me that whatever I want will work out of the box. This is why I hate whenever people say “just switch to Linux” without taking any responsibility. You don’t know what hardware people have and going to install Linux on.
You also claimed Linux is good for people with no money to buy new hardware, yet barely care to even make sure the people you tell this to doesn’t have hardware that might not be supported. What are they gonna do after your advice made the only hardware they have no longer connect to wifi or ethernet? I doubt you’d go out of your way to help them, then.
As for simplicity, I don’t see how W11 is any more complicated that Ubuntu. More resource heavy, yes, but that doesn’t affect the user experience much. Give me concrete examples on how they’re easier to use.
As an engineer, all my jobs so far have used niche internal corporate software which would only be available for Windows. This would be Document Management Systems (DMS’s), internal reporting tools (progress and hour keeping), software distribution programs etc.
And of course the engineering tools themselves are often only built for Windows, whether it’s proprietary PLC programming environments or CAD software.
That said, I can run both WSL and a corporate-approved Debian VM on the same work laptop as a compromise, for whatever makes sense for the task. Still sucks though! At home I’m a Debian fanboy 4 lyfe.
Interesting, how would that work if your corporate IT department uses an (Azure/Entra) active directory system? Can you use a bare metal Linux OS on a Microsoft-based domain service? Asking out of ignorance and curiosity.
It’s some kind of locked-down version of GlobalProtect that’s integrated with a TPM module to prevent machines that aren’t running our corporate image on corporate-approved laptops from being able to connect.
There’s probably some kind of workaround, but I’m lazy and it’s easier just to power up the Windows machine now and then.
I only ever use Windows on my work computer, and only when I need access to a resource that requires our Windows-only VPN.
But seriously, “just use linux” is worthless advice. Lots of people use Windows for specific applications that don’t exist in the Linux ecosystem. For example, there are no Linux applications that come close to AutoCAD, and it simply doesn’t work on Linux.
Better advice would be to get new (or newer used) hardware if possible, if you absolutely need to use Windows, since this workaround will inevitably be “corrected” by Microsoft. Then you can do whatever you like with the old hardware, such as install and learn Linux at your own pace.
“just use linux” is great advice. Not everybody has the money for PC upgrades. And the amount of people that require specific Windows programs and can not switch to an alternative that works on Linux is extremely small.
No, it’s useless advice for people who don’t already have knowledge about Linux.
What kind of knowledge do you think linux requires? Installing is like a 5 step process. Once installed any grandma can use GNOME or KDE just fine.
Which distros to choose, what are their pros and cons, which distros works best with whatever hardware they have? What about which of their existing hardware doesn’t work on Linux? Which of the software they use everyday and probably have spent money on the licenses doesn’t work on Linux at all and which can kinda work using WINE?
These are all questions that are not easily answered by people that lack the prior knowledge of Linux. Just saying “use Linux” is not simply useless advice if you don’t know their use case or the hardware they use, it’s practically harming the first time experience of non-tech savvy people with Linux.
You’re over complicating things
Most hardware will work ootb, most use cases is opening the browser. But i do agree a blank “use Linux” is a bit too broad. Something like “Use Mint” or “Use Fedora” is better.
This is absolutely bullshit and you know it.
A few years ago you would be absolutely right. Nowadays most Linux distributions are pretty straightforward in their installation process though.
No. It’s easier to use than Windows. Just because you have experience in Windows doesn’t make it objectively easier to use.
You don’t need any knowledge. And the small amount you may need when you run into issues is easier to learn than other OS’s.
That’s hilarious. Just because you have experience with Linux doesn’t make it easier to use, either. And 90% of people in the workplace has experience with Windows and Windows only, so that means the majority of people already can use Windows easier even if both OSes are equally easy to use.
Considering all my experience with using Linux has been painful, I don’t believe you when you say Linux is easier. I can Google any issue to do with Windows and find the solution without delving too deeply. You know what happened the last time I tried to find the driver for the wifi card in my laptop for Linux? I had to find an obscure website that lists third party drivers for Linux only to find that it doesn’t exist for my specific card. The card that works flawlessly in Windows.
Imagine not having that knowledge before jumping all in on installing Linux. Most of the people in my office would’ve already sworn off Linux forever the moment they encounter such setback, especially if they were being lied to about the level of difficulty they would face.
Wow, lots of cope from your part here.
It actually is easier. Especially the last few years. Almost every wifi driver and whatever you want just works out of the box. It has stores that are actually worth using, like the Gnome store. It has everything you want for a modern OS.
You should really try Linux again. Something like Ubuntu or Mint is so noob friendly you can do whatever you want without even opening the terminal.
My point still stands. I said that it’s objectively easier to use. Somebody with more Windows experience will have less trouble with Windows. But people that aren’t versed in computers will find a noob friendly distro much less confusing and easier to use than the turd that is Windows 11.
I have used Windows 95, 97, ME, XP, Vista, 8, 10, 11 and a few Server ones. I have used Ubuntu, Mint, Debian, and many others, with Desktop Environments and headless as well. I have also used a few Macbooks, albeit very limited. And as I said, objectively, Ubuntu and Mint are just much simpler to use than the newer versions of Windows or Mac.
Who’s coping here when you’re the one completely dismissing my own experience with using Linux. That’s not a good look for someone supposedly giving ‘good’ advice.
That experience I had was from earlier this year, btw, so don’t tell me that whatever I want will work out of the box. This is why I hate whenever people say “just switch to Linux” without taking any responsibility. You don’t know what hardware people have and going to install Linux on.
You also claimed Linux is good for people with no money to buy new hardware, yet barely care to even make sure the people you tell this to doesn’t have hardware that might not be supported. What are they gonna do after your advice made the only hardware they have no longer connect to wifi or ethernet? I doubt you’d go out of your way to help them, then.
As for simplicity, I don’t see how W11 is any more complicated that Ubuntu. More resource heavy, yes, but that doesn’t affect the user experience much. Give me concrete examples on how they’re easier to use.
you are talking about a small minority of users. what percentage of users use autocad at all?
Not many, but plenty use various corporate applications that are Windows-only.
such as?
As an engineer, all my jobs so far have used niche internal corporate software which would only be available for Windows. This would be Document Management Systems (DMS’s), internal reporting tools (progress and hour keeping), software distribution programs etc.
And of course the engineering tools themselves are often only built for Windows, whether it’s proprietary PLC programming environments or CAD software.
That said, I can run both WSL and a corporate-approved Debian VM on the same work laptop as a compromise, for whatever makes sense for the task. Still sucks though! At home I’m a Debian fanboy 4 lyfe.
you are still talking about niche software though
in my office about 90% of people there could be using linux for their daily tasks with no issues.
Interesting, how would that work if your corporate IT department uses an (Azure/Entra) active directory system? Can you use a bare metal Linux OS on a Microsoft-based domain service? Asking out of ignorance and curiosity.
you can actually, and id bet theres a linux native domain management system that works better.
Just wondering, what kind of VPN is windows only? FortiNet? GlobalProtect?
It’s some kind of locked-down version of GlobalProtect that’s integrated with a TPM module to prevent machines that aren’t running our corporate image on corporate-approved laptops from being able to connect.
There’s probably some kind of workaround, but I’m lazy and it’s easier just to power up the Windows machine now and then.
Aw hell no!
deleted by creator