Linux - fairly new user's perspective
Linux - fairly new user's perspective
So, I’m not entirely sure how to put this together nicely. I’ve been trying different distributions lately, and I’ve ended up with Endeavour. It’s really been quite pleasant (cinnamon is the best change of mind ever). But honestly, I feel like there are often conflicts because everything comes from various individuals rather than a central authority like Microsoft. There seem to be a lot of disagreements—like when Grub doesn’t recognize other operating systems unless you tweak it manually. It reminds me of past issues where the developers and the OS scanning team clashed, or when every single distribution has people complaining about how terrible it is, often because they’re using Vim, Nano, Emacs, or whatever. Personally, I prefer Nano, and I find systemd to be the worst tool ever. Anyone using it isn’t really embracing the true Unix way; they should just switch back to Windows, which feels more natural to me.
I’ve heard a lot of people say CLI is the best, but only Windows users would want a GUI for anything. I’m not sure what OpenRC actually means, but it sounds like a confusing language to most. Using systemd makes me feel like I’m committing a crime against the Linux community.
I also ran into a lot of folks insisting CLI is the only way Windows users should be treated—like they’re peasants or just loud complainers. I’ve been using Linux for nearly ten years and have grown comfortable with it, especially since I know its privacy issues better than most. I think everyone should understand that every OS has its strengths and weaknesses, and it would help if people stopped criticizing others for choosing different paths.
This is just my take, written from Endeavour. I’m not against Linux, but I don’t see why so many are so upset about how I use it. I hope my perspective doesn’t offend anyone.
Those who are content with their setup don’t spend much time debating operating systems that function well. It’s understandable to hear complaints, since we often help others even when it doesn’t help us personally. I’m fine with using both Windows 7 and Linux simultaneously—that’s my approach. Yes, I invested a lot of time trying to share internet from an RPi 400 via USB to an Ethernet adapter. Eventually, I gave up and purchased a second network switch. Some tasks perform better on Windows, others on Linux.
It’s not exclusive to Linux enthusiasts; Windows users also criticize those who don’t know how to use their OS or complain about basic features. Cross-platform communities often spark debates about which operating system is best, comparing them side by side. When I started with Arch, I expected challenges, but it turned out the community is quite open to newcomers if they show effort and understanding. The setup assumes a certain level of Linux knowledge, while other distros like Canonical’s are designed for ease of use. You can easily find help on forums, and people expect some initial struggle as part of learning. Some advanced users may seem dismissive, but most Arch users value practicality over proprietary solutions. On the systemd side, OpenRC is the default manager, replacing Systemd in many ways. It’s seen as bloated, but it does handle core tasks like mounting drives. While some prefer keeping things simple, the fact that OpenRC now supports modules similar to Systemd suggests functionality isn’t entirely lacking.
Generally, people have looked into the matter themselves. But this usually occurs with many topics. On XDA, Huawei discussions are a bit less welcoming to beginners, whereas OnePlus and Samsung handle queries more openly. In the Jeep community, Pirate4x4 set up a special area for newcomers' questions.
This quote really resonates with me. I often rely on Linux because it’s the most efficient choice for certain tasks, though it takes longer compared to my MacBook Pro. Setting it up is quick, updates run smoothly, and if anything goes wrong, I can easily revert using a backup and get back online in just an hour.
This originates from an earlier era before Linux existed, and I see it as a lighthearted debate I support partially with B and somewhat with C, not much with A. I think having proprietary software hurts the overall computing experience. Of course, users shouldn't be blamed. I’d say it’s better than running multiple daemons for the same task but with tenfold extra effort. It’s nice to have a modular setup, but eventually efficiency matters. Moreover, many criticisms aimed at systemd could apply to the kernel as well. I’d worry if systemd wasn’t open source or if it were completely unchangeable, but that isn’t true. A lot of the problems in Linux/OSS circles come from similar roots as other specialized groups; sadly they sometimes bring some of society’s worst behavior. Don’t let a few vocal people discourage you.
Thanks everyone! Most of my experiences have been great, though the tough parts stand out a lot. I think I’ll stay here for a long time—it’s really comfortable for me. I’d say I don’t fully agree with your idea that proprietary software is bad in itself, but I don’t feel confident enough to argue. Still, I understand where you’re coming from, and at the end of the day, people just use whatever works best for them—it’s their computer. ^^
My perspective here is limited to what I see. Windows and macOS play a big role in shaping how users learn to work with software. People used to Windows often struggle when switching to Linux because they're conditioned to expect things to behave the same everywhere. I think this is partly due to Microsoft's approach, which can be limiting. It’s not necessarily about all proprietary software being bad, but rather about certain practices that don’t always serve users well. From a business standpoint, keeping customers within a single ecosystem makes sense since it supports profitability. On the other hand, software development speeds up more when it’s a paid job than a personal project. That’s why Linux often introduces big changes later—like FreeSync and HDR—while these features took longer to adopt in Windows and macOS. Examples like those on my own system show how Linux can deliver advanced capabilities months or years after they appear in other platforms.
Observe that when I refer to proprietary software as inherently harmful, I’m not suggesting any particular product is bad simply because it’s owned by someone. Rather, I mean that its closed nature makes the situation less ideal compared to open-source alternatives. Keeping source code hidden can feel like a form of coercion, especially when access affects people’s work or survival. For example, Microsoft holds a near-monopoly in many professional setups; without source code, using macOS or Linux becomes nearly impossible unless you rely on virtualization—which undermines the benefit. If Microsoft later stops supporting a Windows version essential for compatibility with other tools, I’d be left with no choice but to face consequences. This issue stems directly from proprietary models and would disappear if we demanded transparency and reduced intellectual property restrictions.