Yes, we can ban those questions.
Yes, we can ban those questions.
This platform isn’t meant to be a general discussion space. It focuses on giving clear, targeted responses to individual inquiries. If we applied this same method to other common questions, we’d likely see minimal engagement. Users seek precise help, and if they need more, they can post in their own threads. Many suggestions aim to consolidate similar topics into one place, but the result is often confusion and difficulty keeping things organized. Most responses stay on the main page, so dedicated threads tend to go unanswered, undermining the forum’s purpose. If you find repeated questions irritating, it’s best to ignore them or compile a well-organized list of recommendations for each use case and link them accordingly. A sticky thread might work, but it’s rarely read—stick with regular posts that follow guidelines.
It’s the same issue repeated often, with various individuals and unique needs. Platforms like this are intended for focused conversations and tailored guidance. Banning such threads would be counterproductive from my perspective. If they removed these discussions, users would depend solely on a few key threads for answers, which would require constant updates to keep up with Linux distro developments.
I previously wrote a "Getting Started" guide to address those types of questions, but it needs to remain at the top of the subforum. Perhaps with more details from someone else, we could create a helpful resource. I believe adding a sticky note would be useful, even if it isn’t original.
Being straightforward about my opinions is part of the deal. Please forgive any discomfort this may cause. This space tries to act like an IRC channel instead of just collecting answers so people don’t have to repeat themselves—after all, that’s why dedicated tech forums exist. Most inquiries come from curious minds eager to learn; giving out canned responses only hinders progress. Developing critical thinking is important, so let’s focus on encouraging it. Still, I see this forum as an open space, but I think it would help more if it focused on tech tips rather than general advice. A few weeks ago someone mentioned a thread, but it got ignored. It might have been you. It looked like a thoughtful conversation, much more useful than simply saying “go with Ubuntu” or “install Arch.” And the kind of advice that jumps to mind is dangerous—like suggesting Kali or BlackArch unless people are ready to read about their goals. In short:
1. These threads aren’t usually new or unanswered.
2. They could raise legal concerns.
3. Specific issues should go to the right communities, IRCs, mailing lists, etc.
4. The ban on @Bigun is strict, but auto-locking and pointing to relevant threads could help—moderators can override if needed.
5. Poor web etiquette spreads; warning newcomers will protect everyone from misinformation.
Suggested fixes:
- A bot could lock off the post and direct users to the correct thread.
- Expand the rules to include basic etiquette guidelines.
- Emphasize legal considerations and the importance of responsible advice.
- Remind members that repeated bad posts, like “best Linux distros,” are common and rarely unique.
It was mostly about what I was suggesting. Banning isn’t the right term for what I meant. Plus, the Linux community tends to be quite dismissive, and even offering suggestions isn’t enough.
Those who seek such information are typically the same individuals who avoid searching online and ignore pinned answers. Share your own Linux guide with a link, or contribute to an existing answer.
I understood the question, though... honestly, I ended up making a humorous apology at the end.
The situation with Kali/BlackArch isn’t illegal. We shouldn’t restrict all computer-related conversations because these tools can be misused for wrong purposes. The hackintosh policy exists for a reason—it’s about legality. These Linux distros aren’t inherently criminal, though they could support illegal activities. Your lawyer point is valid; as long as no one encourages breaking the law, it should be acceptable. It’s similar to how we discuss piracy without sharing actual links. Linux’s strength lies in its flexibility—you can customize it for any need. Think of it like building a PC: you start with the kernel and add your preferred software and interfaces. You can also choose OEM distros (like Ubuntu) and personalize them further (such as Lubuntu). Since people have different requirements, we should provide options to suit various needs. Without guidance, it’s hard to know where to begin.
I used to focus on giving advice for Linux installation questions, but the volume makes it exhausting. Most of these queries follow a similar pattern: someone starts from Windows, feels unsure about Linux, and asks for guidance or a recommendation. Over time, I've noticed they often lack details about their setup or goals.
Given how common this is, I’ve been thinking about whether a simple “Linux Quickstart” guide could help. It should be easy to understand, not just a list of distros. I agree it’s annoying when the same questions keep coming up without much context.
Maybe it would be better to ask for more info first—like what you plan to use Linux for, or your budget and needs. This way, people could tailor suggestions more effectively. It would also help if users didn’t just assume “Linux” is a single system but recognized differences between Ubuntu, Mint, Arch, Fedora, etc.
It’s frustrating when people don’t share enough about their situation before asking. A short note about your intended use—such as video editing or light gaming on a recent machine—could make the request more useful.
Some in the community push for self-reliance, but it’s helpful to clarify expectations early. If someone wants to dive into math, don’t just hand them a book without context. A better approach would be a friendly prompt asking what you’re aiming for, so recommendations fit your needs.