85 lines
5.2 KiB
HTML
85 lines
5.2 KiB
HTML
|
<p>Recently, after having setup my MACCHIATObin as a desktop computer, I've
|
||
|
|
decided to move most of my computing to that, and therefore my x86 laptop is
|
||
|
|
going to be mostly unused. As such I decided to install something more
|
||
|
|
low-maintenance on it since I don't want to have to fix or update it with any
|
||
|
|
special frequency. As such ArchLinux (my favorite distribution) was out of the
|
||
|
|
question, and I had to consider alternatives.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>At this point I started considering what OS I would install on the machine,
|
||
|
|
and for a brief moment I started to consider installing Windows on it. The idea
|
||
|
|
is, naturally, that Windows provides good software support and it's famed for
|
||
|
|
being the more "stable" option... but I quickly realized just how ridiculous
|
||
|
|
this was. The fact of the matter is, unlike Windows, Linux
|
||
|
|
<em>just works</em>.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>For a long time, Linux has gotten a bad rep for being very unstable,
|
||
|
|
requiring lots of manual configuration, and generally just being an OS for
|
||
|
|
techies (or GNU/Linux, don't <i>copypasta</i> me), and if we look at
|
||
|
|
distributions like ArchLinux or Gentoo in particular, that would definitely seem
|
||
|
|
to be true. However, this is far from being the case for all Linux
|
||
|
|
distributions. In particular, what I have decided to install on my laptop is
|
||
|
|
LinuxMint.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>The main points I would look at as to why Linux is better as a stable OS,
|
||
|
|
even for non-techies, are the following: stability, security, and control.
|
||
|
|
Obviously, these don't apply to every distribution out there, but they
|
||
|
|
definitely do seem to apply to LinuxMint, and probably other similar
|
||
|
|
distributions.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>Regarding stability, I think this part is obvious. Many stable distributions
|
||
|
|
put a great deal of effort into testing software before putting it into
|
||
|
|
production, making sure that it can be installed and work just as expected.
|
||
|
|
Although this means that the software may not be as bleeding-edge, you can be
|
||
|
|
sure that when you install it, it'll work as expected, and updates will not
|
||
|
|
break any currently configured behaviour. The same cannot be said for Windows,
|
||
|
|
where updates are the most dreaded experience of just about any Windows user.
|
||
|
|
Every update presents a possibility of the system breaking, of having to endure
|
||
|
|
seemingly eternal shutdown and boot processes, and of seemingly unrelated
|
||
|
|
software running into glitches and bugs because an update has been installed in
|
||
|
|
the background without the user's knowing. Comparatively, Linux provides much
|
||
|
|
more tranquility regarding updates and long-term usage.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>With security Windows in notorious for being akin to the whore of Babylon.
|
||
|
|
Basically every bit of malware under the sun is made for Windows. And although
|
||
|
|
this isn't the fault of Microsoft - after all, this is something that would
|
||
|
|
likely happen with any OS that became sufficiently popular for PCs - it is true
|
||
|
|
that this does give a layer of extra security to your average user. Add to this
|
||
|
|
that the manner in which you install software on Linux is much more secure to
|
||
|
|
begin with: package managers. Microsoft has started to implement something
|
||
|
|
similar with their software store, but this is something that Linux has had
|
||
|
|
since the very beginning. Pretty much any program you wish to install can be
|
||
|
|
found in the software repositories, and when you install them, the downloads are
|
||
|
|
verified normally via checksum and signature verification. Although there are
|
||
|
|
probably still ways someone could sneak some malware into the repositories of a
|
||
|
|
Linux distribution, it's very unlikely, especially if you're running a
|
||
|
|
well-known stable distribution, as then someone will likely find the malware in
|
||
|
|
testing before it even reaches production.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>Linux also provides more control. I've alluded to this before with stability,
|
||
|
|
but Linux won't do anything unless you tell it to. That is, it respects you as a
|
||
|
|
user to decide what you want to do with your computer. Whereas on Windows there
|
||
|
|
are always programs you are forbidden to uninstall, updates which are forced,
|
||
|
|
and loads of unalterable configurations, Linux let's you decide all these things
|
||
|
|
yourself. For although there may be some settings and software out of the box,
|
||
|
|
you're always free to change any of it to your liking, and therefore you are
|
||
|
|
able to personalize your environment to what is most suited to your
|
||
|
|
computing.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>In terms of "user-friendliness", I also find that Linux is much more
|
||
|
|
intuitive and understandable, especially if you're using a distribution like
|
||
|
|
LinuxMint. We all think that Windows is super-intuitive because we're used to
|
||
|
|
it, and it has dominated personal computing; but if you spend a few years
|
||
|
|
without using it, you'll start to notice that it's actually quite a confusing
|
||
|
|
interface to use, and a lot of the ways in which things work is actually
|
||
|
|
counter-intuitive.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>All-in-all, I think it's fair to say that, contrary to popular belief, Linux
|
||
|
|
<em>just works</em>, and is actually a really "user-friendly" OS to use. It is
|
||
|
|
simply unfortunate that it has the reputation for begin extremely technical,
|
||
|
|
which may, to an extent, be the fault of Linux users who unnecessarily
|
||
|
|
complicate a beginner's experience with advanced material that they're not ready
|
||
|
|
for or even interested in.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>Basically, techies, if you want normal people to use Linux, stop scaring them
|
||
|
|
by telling them to install ArchLinux or alike.</p>
|