Linux

ZorinOS ?

I think the problem here generally stems from the view that a system which is explicitly not Windows should be suitable for "Windows refugees". (Haiku would come to mind sooner than Linux, but I don't want to open that can of worms here.)

Mint isn't "like Windows", not even Zorin is "like Windows". No operating system (except perhaps ReactOS) that isn't Windows aims to provide a good sanctuary for "Windows refugees". The expectation that a Linux distribution must be "suitable for Windows users" will lead to many more disappointments.

Bill Joy (google him if necessary) once said (quite rightly):

What was the goal of the Linux community--to replace Windows? One can imagine higher aspirations.

Take Linux for what it wants to be (a free implementation of parts of V7 UNIX for reasonably modern systems), and you'll immediately be less disappointed.

(Disclosure: As far as Linux is concerned, I currently only use Gentoo myself—not because it's great for Windows users, but because it's a great Linux distribution.)

The vast majority of users don't need "more meat" in their OS. They need stability. Linux Mint works great on that front, I don't see the need to loose focus with multiple new distros. Not everyone needs to jump distro every month.

Disclaimer: i've been using Linux Mint for over 10 years without ever hopping to something else. And I'm a software engineer, not a casual user.

I think it really depends on the type of refugee we're talking about here.

If they're interested in tinkering, the starting point doesn't really matter that much. Just let the refugee know that distrohopping is allowed. If you hear that some new distro has an awesome feature, give it a go.

If we're talking about a person who hates tinkering and tweaking, the first distro suddenly begins to matter a lot more. That's the distro they will be stuck with for several years, so Mint is definitely a solid option. Actually, most distributions that are Debian or Ubuntu based should be fine.

Much as I love KDE's beautiful themes, Mint is just... easy. I've spent so many years hunting dependencies like lost scrolls in ancient tombs and beseeching ancient wizards of the right incantation to fix my Bluetooth that I just quit. As soon as it stopped being broken, I stopped trying to fix it. Mint hasn't broken on me. Everything works exactly as intended, right out of the box, with few exceptions.

I have been dreaming of this day for ten fucking years. For now? Hon, I am good. I'm not having to spend hours digging for old posts on AskUbuntu or some other forum for the solution to errors no one else has had since Obama's era.

Are there actual computer scientists with some hard evidence what works when switching OS? Because this article is just making stuff up to say anything, ie filler content/debate.

I've been on Ubuntu for the longest. Mint looks cool. I tried it today. Its good. I had to do some fsck on my drives. I'm going to try pure Debian first. I'm tired of all the closed source drivers not working. I'm going to use old hardware and proven drivers.

Because switching from Windows can be intimidating and Mint is the literal opposite of intimidating. It's boring, simple, and clean, thus the perfect stepping stone. At least, it was for me and quite a few others I know. I still install Mint first on new hardware

As long as people are moving away from Windows and Mac, who cares? You're never gonna convince most people that their OS should be interesting and worth talking about. Take the W.

I will move to KDE when they add cross app online account support. Specifically being able to sign into my Google Calendar and getting my appointments and scheduling thing from my PC without using a browser.

Until then gnome/Cinnamon is my de

I strongly dislike how the zone is getting flooded with "now it's not X, but Y" in terms of distro recommendations.

Not knowing what a distro is and where to start is one of the main issues with people who may want to switch to Linux but don't know how to do it. If Mint getting called out as a good place to start allows them to switch, then they should install Mint. If Ubuntu is all they have heard of, and it makes them try the switch, then they should install Ubuntu. Tbh, the only really dangerous approach is starting with something like Arch which, despite fantastic documentation, is probably more likely to turn new users away.

Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress. Someone who starts from either Mint or Ubuntu or whatever can distro hop later. Let's not muddy the waters even more for our would-be Windows refugees.

I always hate it when people seem to try making the decisions for others based on what they use.

It was bad enough when Ubuntu was losing faith with people because of its poor decision making, now we got you here saying Linux Mint is not the answer?

Confusing people on an already confusing mess on which distro to choose when leaving windows is not how you win favorability with linux. Mint is the choice because it is not pitching freshly disgruntled Windows users into steep learning curves from the get-go. If you push them into something like Arch, you're going to have people both pissed at Arch and at you for making their experience miserable.

See, I've been looking back at my still-new Linux experience of nine months, and wondering how my own journey can help other people get started with FOSS operating systems.

An expert opinion, fantastic. 🍿

Mint is the one I've used the longest and for some reason keep coming back to, so its still my jam, even if its a little basic.

As someone considering Win to Mint, why do people keep saying it's basic? What would I be missing? I need the computer for playing games, some hobby media work, internet.

It' all linux. I distro hopped because I heared another distro handles the problem I'm facing much better than the current one.

I haven't had problems in years - or I simply don't care anymore. I've got my base system and I don't fuck around anymore. It works like a charm.

I would recommend Linux Mint because, first, it's the one everyone says, and second, it was the Linux OS that I started with, fresh off Windows.

Both are bad reasons to pick a distro to recommend. Better reasons would be

1. You got some experience with that distro and you're willing to help the newbie in question, with issues that they might have.
2. The distro offers sane out-of-the-box defaults and pre-installed GUI software.
3. The distro is reliable, and won't give the newbie headaches later on.

why not just skip the middleman and get right into the distros that have a bit more meat on them?

Because a middleman distro is practically unavoidable.

You don't know the best distro for someone else; and if the person is a newbie, odds are they don't know it for themself either. So the odds the person will eventually ditch that distro you recommended and stick with something else are fairly large.

Cinnamon vs. KDE Plasma

I have both installed although I practically only use Cinnamon (due to personal tastes; I do think Plasma is great). It's by no ways as finicky as the author claims it to be.

Plasma is more customisable than Cinnamon indeed, but remember what I said about you not knowing the best distro for someone else? Well, you don't know the best DE either. You should rec something simple that'll offer them an easy start, already expecting them to ditch it later on.

So, why don't I just recommend Linux Mint with KDE Plasma? Well, the cool thing about abandoning Cinnamon and embracing KDE Plasma is that it unlocks a ton of distros we can pick from.

That's circular reasoning: you should ditch Mint because of Cinnamon, and you should ditch Cinnamon because it allows you to ditch Mint.

Bazzite, Novara, CachyOS

Or you can install all those gaming features in any other distro of your choice.

XDA, experts on not being the answer for OS refugees anymore.

I use Fedora myself but for people new to Linux I still usually recommend Ubuntu. I know it’s likely to stick around because of the company backing and if an application is built for Linux it’s pretty much guaranteed to work on Ubuntu. I’m sure Mint is great too but for a beginner I want the distro to be as well supported as possible.

Once they get the hang of open source and develop a healthy hate of Snap I drag them down into my Fedora cave though.

why not just skip the middleman

Because many people take for granted their advanced understanding of Unix systems that allows them to get into the "meat".

If you're the type of person that is excited by a terminal display and prepared to read a whole pile of documentation, then sure--go straight to Arch, or Alpine if you're insane. But most people want something that's familiar, easy to set up, and will never force you to open a terminal. That's Mint (plus a number of other beginner-friendly distros). And most average people are perfectly happy to stay there. And that's perfectly fine.

Isn't he actually talking about the DE and not that much about the distro?

"Linux Mint isn't the answer for Linux newbies switching from windows to Linux" -- someone that's obviously done distro hopping. They then go on to cite "professional work"... something that generally benefits from boring, stable, reliable OS... and "customization"... which is a great place to start breaking things.

And their alternatives? Kubuntu, fedora, and opensuse. What? *buntu used to be a safe bet ... but they can't keep things even running these days. Fedora... a perfect newbie choice. No hand holding, half your features won't work as expected for a windows user because it focuses everything on foss only, out of the box. ... and opensuse. I wouldn't ever call opensuse "newbie friendly"... and they use their own packaging so all the common stuff you would want to look up for help won't be a simple one click fix since most guides and apps recommend apt, rpm, or pac.