Basically the forced shift to the enshittified Windows 11 in october has me eyeing the fence a lot. But all I know about Linux is 1: it’s a cantankerous beast that can smell your fear and lack of computer skills and 2: that’s apparently not true any more? Making the change has slowly become a more real possibility for me, though I’m pretty much a fairly casual PC-user, I don’t do much more than play games. So I wrote down some questions I had about Linux.
Will my ability to play games be significantly affected compared to Windows?
Can I mod games as freely and as easily as I do on Windows?
If a program has no Linux version, is it unusable, or are there workarounds?
Can Linux run programs that rely on frameworks like .NET or other Windows-specific libraries?
How do OS updates work in Linux? Is there a “Linux Update” program like what Windows has?
How does digital security work on Linux? Is it more vulnerable due to being open source? Is there integrated antivirus software, or will I have to source that myself?
Are GPU drivers reliable on Linux?
Can Linux (in the case of a misconfiguration or serious failure) potentially damage hardware?
And also, what distro might be best for me?
Back then ubuntu had pretty much all of linux cornered, the vast majority of distros were ubuntu based or ubuntu adjacent, and ubuntu was beloved, however, it came with a number of flaws, mint just rectified those flaws and was otherwise basically just ubuntu.
By being ubuntu based and getting rid of the stuff that made people angry, you ended up with a highly supported, beloved distro. These days things have changed, however, fedora is just as if not more well supported than ubuntu, same with arch based distros.
The only reason Mint is suggested to beginners is because it’s “a highly supported, beloved distro”? A reason that has very little to do with beginners?
That does NOT have very little to do with beginners, being a highly supported distro is one of the most important things for beginners, having guides for how to do things written specifically for your distro is fantastic for new people.
It being beloved is why it’s recommended, yes, and that doesn’t benefit new people, but that’s an obvious reason why one might recommend it…
There’s also the fact that it’s designed to be easy to use, but that also applies to fedora, and fedora is significantly more well-developed, so it’s not really relevant here.
Beingly highly supported is a prerequisite to being a good beginner distro, but it’s not a reason to recommend a distro. If we take it as a reason then Mint having a GUI is also a reason to recommend to beginners.
This is where we’re going to completely disagree. Guides in general are good, but I doubt any beginner actually cares about guides, unless it’s a guide telling you what to click where on the GUI. A good beginner distro has to work for the user without the need of any guides.
Instead of playing the prying game where I keep prying until you give straight answers (because people don’t love Mint just because it’s an Ubuntu fork) I’m just going to conclude that either you deliberately don’t want to say why people recommend Mint to beginners or you actually don’t know why people recommend Mint. I don’t care which it is because both invalidate your opinion of the Mint suggestion being outdated.
Somehow you think the ease of use isn’t relevant because it also applies to Fedora, but support is relevant despite it also applying to Fedora? How about some consistency in your arguments.
Mint having a GUI IS a good reason to recommend it to beginners… Arch for example has terrible GUI support, which is why it’s not a good choice for beginners (don’t get me started on manjaro…)
This is simply not true, i’ve given linux to countless people, people always google how to do things and end up with guides for a different distro, i’ve seen this happen countless times because I specialize in giving beginners linux. They absolutely do care about this, and it’s extremely commonly cited as one of the reasons to go with mint.
I think it’s a bad recommendation mainly made for legacy reasons rather than current ones, that was very clear. Give me reasons it’s a good one, I used to use mint, I gave plenty of reasons for why it’s a bad choice. You’ve given nothing in support of it, and expected me to write your argument for you?
Of course the person on the side of mint being a bad choice… doesn’t think it’s a good choice? I gave the only reasons you’d want to use mint, tbh. Aside from that there’s literally no reason to over fedora. Feel free to prove me wrong with a list.
Are you deliberately misinterpreting me? Are you actually trolling here?
My point was obvious, fedora and mint are both equally easy to use, so, ease of use is not a factor when deciding between them… in fact, fedora is EASIER to use (flatpak meaning completely gui updates, kde being hugely standardized and well-developed), so, if it is a factor, it makes fedora a better choice than mint.
It’s obvious that ease of use is a massive factor for recommending a distro to a beginner, it’s just that ease of use doesn’t favor mint.
Specializes in giving beginners Linux, can’t name a single good reason why people recommend Mint to beginners (now or in the past), except for it having a GUI and guides. I don’t know about the beginners you’re “helping” but based on this conversation I wouldn’t trust a single recommendation, suggestion or opinion from you.
You were also unable to, at this point, i’m convinced you’re trolling. Sorry, it’s just not a good choice. And I gave legitimate reasons for why it was great in the past, you just didn’t like them!
Having a great GUI, easy installation, a bunch of guides, and being the most well-supported are all perfectly valid reasons to use mint like 10 years ago.
Interesting strategy: “make my argument for me!”
“Oh, you couldn’t make my argument for me? why would I trust you?”
The arguments are super simple.
Mint focuses on stability as evident from its decision to use Ubuntu LTS versions as it’s base. In case I need to spell it out, LTS versions are generally more stable and reliable.
And you brought up X11 as a negative, but there’s a good reason Mint is staying on X11. Yes, Wayland is the future and eventually Mint will adopt Wayland as well, when Wayland becomes more stable. I’m the mean time Mint stays on X11 because X11 is very stable, extremely stable compared to Wayland if you have an Nvidia card.
Mint also has better out the box support. For example to my knowledge for Nvidia Fedora comes with Nouvuea drivers which means for gaming you need to go through an extra process to get proprietary drivers. Mint has out the box support for Nvidia drivers. This is less of a thing when compared to Bazzite, but still a reason why to pick Mint as a beginner distro.
And the reason people recommend Mint is in those first two points. Mint deliberately sacrifices fancy bells and whistles to be as stable as possible. You not knowing that shows how little you know about Mint.
Stability is essential for industry applications, but is actually TERRIBLE for beginners, especially ones that want to game. I could go into the reasons why, but I doubt you care. I don’t agree that this is a selling point for beginners in the first place, which is why I didn’t mention it. Stability does not mean “does not crash” in a linux context, it means UNCHANGING. Extremely old software is not good for beginners who want things to just work.
Give me evidence that there are more issues with wayland than X11 and i’ll believe you.
Bazzite fixes this and is why I recommend it over fedora kinoite. Irrelevant point, not actually true, actually, the opposite is true precisely because of the last point. You realize stability means out of date kernel versions, and out of date kernel versions means… worse out of the box support!
Wellp, those are bad points, which is why i didn’t make them, sorry!