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.
+ +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 +just works.
+ +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 copypasta 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.
+ +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.
+ +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.
+ +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.
+ +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.
+ +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.
+ +All-in-all, I think it's fair to say that, contrary to popular belief, Linux +just works, 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.
+ +Basically, techies, if you want normal people to use Linux, stop scaring them +by telling them to install ArchLinux or alike.