Fresh version of Windows user-friendly Zorin OS arrives to tempt the Linux-wary

One of the more widely used Ubuntu spinoffs, non-techie friendly Zorin has put out three editions of its latest version – Zorin OS 17.1 – and there are still more to come. Zorin OS 17.1 is still based on the now very nearly two-year-old Ubuntu 22.04 "Jammy Jellyfish" release, which will soon be replaced with the new LTS …

[Bloodbeastterror]

Coincidence...

Please don't flame me - it's just a comment for discussion.

After swearing I'd never touch Linux again, I downloaded Zorin 17.1 just last night in the hope that it will be easier than Mint in terms of usability. Absolutely no disrespect to Mint, which looks great and performs very well - I suspect that my difficulty is not with any distro but with Linux itself. Specifically, the installation of programs. Packages where I can click and install are great, but I grew increasingly frustrated by the regular prompts to use the console with half a dozen "get this/get that" commands. Yes, I'm soft after so may years on Windows where a click on a .exe does the work, but I don't understand why Linux, knowing what it needs to install, demands that I spend time typing abstruse commands to get the job done.

I'm not sure what can of worms I'm opening here. It's just my opinion for comment and advice.

[Tubz]

Re: Coincidence...

Have to agree, until Linux makes installing constantly as simple as "Windows installer asks a question click one of these buttons", Linux will never be seen as a replacement.

Even on the subject of being a replacement, It won't happen, too much fragmentation of the OS, did Windows 3/NT/XP allow OS/2 to get its foot firmly in the door by allowing fragmentation of the WinX desktop?

Yes various versions in the Enterprise world may work, but Linux for consumers needs to be a single desktop environment so users get that constant familar interface with the minimum of bundled apps, like back in the Win3 days and then everything a general user wants installed through an app store, leave the console to the die hard techies. What happens under skin is up to the Linux developer, the user doesn't care or need to know, sadly it will never happen, as I can't see the Linux community coming together to achieve this.

[wolfetone]

Re: Coincidence...

"Linux will never be seen as a replacement."

Of all the reasons why Linux isn't considered a replacement, this is right down the bottom of the list. The way you install an application on the Mac is a piece of piss even compared to Windows itself. Yet both the Mac and Linux don't have the marketshare of Windows at a desktop/laptop level.

The reason Linux isn't "seen as a replacement" is down to legacy applications and long standing stubbornness of the only application in the world that can do a job must be a Windows application. Look at the recent article regarding Outlook and how many people are so entrenched in Outlook's way of doing things they have no idea how well other non-Microsoft applications work with Exchange/O365 for email.

It isn't a case of Linux being a replacement for Windows any more, in my opinion. People who know there is a different, better way of doing things have long since left Windows. Whether they've gone to Linux or Mac is irrelevant really. People who can't see an alternative to Windows will never see the alternative because of a myriad of different reasons, and that will be down to old habits and a fear (or even refusal) to modify their way of working to try something new.

[Kevin Johnston]

Re: Coincidence...

Firmly agree with this especially about the 'it must be Windows' people, They will have spent so much effort on learning how each new version of Windows works and this could now need repeating several times a year as unrequested updates get deployed but learning to use Linux/Mac is 'too much work'

You mention Outlook and this is a perfect example in business where 'it came included so must be best' which had some traction when home use was also Outlook but these days it is more likely to be on a tablet rather than a PC so that argument has time expired. The MS lock-in is very much a poisoned chalice yet many businesses still sip from it as a result of MS Sales people who should be on 6 figure salaries for their ability to convince the C-Suite to sign yet another contract

[MisterHappy]

Re: Coincidence...

I must respectfully disagree with the phrase "They will have spent so much effort on learning how each new version of Windows works". I'd estimate about 80% of our user-base never learn how Windows works, all they want after any upgrade is for the 5 or 6 icons on their desktop to still do the thing they always have.

They don't care that they are running Win 7, 10 or 11, they just want to double click on an icon and open their Excel Database (shudder).

However, these same end users are the ones who probably wouldn't care if their desktop was Windows or Linux as long as those icons were the same and did the same thing.

[jgarbo]

Re: Coincidence...

Exactly. Most computer users don't know or care what OS is on the thing, so long as it gets the job done. How quaint? They don't care about the model of taxi they take, bus they ride or plane the fly on, either. Strange? Linux evangelists can be so tedious about Windows heresy sometimes but we abide. I use Linux because it gets my jobs done, My wife's corporate Windows machine gets her jobs done. Then we have dinner...

[werdsmith]

Re: Coincidence...

Right down the bottom of the list? You don't have much experience with the users.

And Mac is OK until you come up against "you need HomeBrew".

The multitude of different package managers and dependency controllers like Snap that are not even associated with one distro, people go looking for instructions on the web, they get instructions for RPM they need APT. There are dozens of similar scenarios. I am used to this but I don't want to have to clutter up with Snap and Flatpak or whatever. Not to mention being told to download the source and build it then it fails and they have to figure out what switches.

A seasoned linux user might love all that like a dog likes gnawing a bone, but it's a royal pain to many that just want to be getting on with life.

And I've only been talking about installing software. Not touch on distros, guis and more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Coincidence...

> And Mac is OK until you come up against "you need HomeBrew".

Why would a generic average Mac user ever come up against "you need Homebrew"?

By the time they hit that, they'll surely have been playing around enough to be well able to handle that (and be the office expert).

[werdsmith]

Re: Coincidence...

Why would a generic average Mac user ever come up against "you need Homebrew"?

Because they've seen something in a youtube video.....

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Coincidence...

"I don't want to have to clutter up with Snap and Flatpak or whatever."

Neither does this Linux user. What he likes about Linux is that it Just Works unlike Windows which all too often only just works axcept when it's just not working.

[werdsmith]

Re: Coincidence...

But it doesn’t just work. It’s miles away from that. That’s the whole point of the conversation. It’s supposed to do something, a user gets instructions to do something but it’s not relevant to their distribution.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Coincidence...

Neither does this Linux user. What he likes about Linux is that it Just Works unlike Windows which all too often only just works except when it's just not working.

I would like to use the latest version of Musescore. It comes as an AppImage only. Which doesn't work - let alone "just work" because my fully updated latest release of Linux Mint doesn't contain the right C library.

[Terry 6]

Re: Coincidence...

The volunteer/hobbyist nature of FOSS does tend to lead to stuff that works, for most people most of the time. But if there's a glitch or a use case that doesn't interest the devs it will never get resolved.

Which in one sense is reasonable. OTOH when I've dome volunteer work I've done all the jobs needed, not just the fun ones. Yes, as a volunteer in the Community Library I worked with the public and sat on the committee- which I enjoyed. But I also tidied the shelves and cleaned the kitchen. Which is boring but has to be done

[gfx]

Re: Coincidence...

Brew is just a package manager for MacOS, it works allright it keeps all the updates in one place.

Most linux distributions hace a GUI package manager, Manjaro uses Pamac it doesn"t ask too many questions and not everything is in a snap like Ubuntu.

[Jurassic.Hermit]

Re: Coincidence...

I agree about 365 dependency, but with MS merging the look and feel and functionality of the apps and online versions, most average users could use 365 in the Edge browser on a linux desktop. Yes, Edge for linux exists and would be ideal for MS users on linux.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Coincidence...

The reason Linux isn't "seen as a replacement" is down to legacy applications and long standing stubbornness of the only application in the world that can do a job must be a Windows application.

The gamble which is any attempt to print or use sound in Linux doesn't help. I write as one who has only Linux installed on the five computers I have in regular use. I'm currently using, for example, a Thinkpad with Linux Mint on it which absolutely will not print to my Brother laser printer, whether I try to connect by USB, directly over the network or as a shared printer. The same printer works fine with a desktop running the same Linux.

[Yankee Doodle Doofus]

Re: Coincidence...

I had issues with printing to a Brother laser printer via Linux Mint when I switched my mom's now decade-old desktop over to Mint from Windows 10 last year. I wound up needing a different driver than what Mint was trying to use, but I got it working.

[hedgie]

Re: Coincidence...

Disclaimer: I haven't had a Windows system since the G4 PowerMacs came out, so my only exposure to it in over two decades is through institutional machines, or spending a lot of time at Google helping the people I work with catch up with technology that they missed out on because they were in prison for about that time frame.

Yeah. My father was one of those Windows die-hards because it was "familiar" no matter how much it changed between iterations. My mother, OTOH is one of those non-technical people who doesn't care and had me use her card to buy her a Macbook, and the help requests have plummeted. But even Microsoft's almost Stockholm Syndrome users isn't the only reason for its continued dominance. Inertia and the nature of the alternatives help keep it in place.

Apple doesn't do the low-range hardware, so you're paying an up-front premium that locks out people who can't afford, or at least aren't willing to pay the cost for something new and different. Further, the so-called "power user" things that people familiar with Windows can do isn't going to happen on a Mac, unless you either use the UNIX command-line or install something that puts a pretty GUI over what it's doing through the command-line[1]. While it's brilliant from an OS-design perspective, locking the average user out of things that can fsck the system, real "freedom"[2] with the OS requires a steep learning curve. Building one's own and most repair/upgrades also isn't going to happen with Mac. This isn't a deal-breaker for me, and it is my primary platform, but it is one for plenty of people.

Linux has so many choices, your average person isn't going to know where to start. Ubuntu/Mint do the same thing Apple do with having limited GUI options for "power users" and dump you at the command-line or installing some utility to do the CLI stuff for you if you want to go beyond that. SUSE has YAST, for that sort of thing, but is a bit more work to get going as a distro. Then, there are the sort of QoL issues that arise from a system that isn't completely integrated/designed to offer a consistent experience. While much better than it was even 10 years ago, I still have odd sound and Bluetooth issues cropping up, the latter at least a few times a week. Even the non-rolling version of my distro, while obviously more stable/reliable has crap pop up from time to time and looking for answers online, even from good communities is much more intimidating than just calling someone like Microsoft or Apple. Then there is the whole issue with software compatibility. If an essential application doesn't have a native port, Linux is *much* less attractive. Having to run something you rely on through WINE is a strong disincentive. If there was something akin to Steamplay for productivity software, or the changes to the Flathub rules meaning more native ports, perhaps this issue could be better resolved. While I do hope that happens, intimidation is going to make it less attractive, although amusingly enough, I will get off my arse one of these to dual-boot my Intel Mac with Linux for gaming.

ChromeOS can work for plenty of users, and IIRC, does have a decent market-share, but is also quite limited in capability. Unlike Mac or *buntu, CLI wizardry doesn't let one break out of that.

[1] I probably spend more time using BASH on the Mac than I do on Linux, and it was absolutely essential in order to get MacOS to behave in a manner that I liked. Between setting Time Machine to be a 1x/day at 4am cronjob and not an hourly bogging-down the system, to not just installing X, but replacing Apple's version of it, setting up root access, configuring SSHD and so-on, that's a lot of time at a terminal.

[2] How "free" the users of any commercial system are is a third-rail that I'm not going to get anywhere near here.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Coincidence...

"but Linux for consumers needs to be a single desktop environment so users get that constant familar interface with the minimum of bundled apps"

I'm struggling with this. Are you saying Linux uptake would be better if distros just had a minimum of apps so it would be able to do less? Where's the sense in that?

[Liam Proven]

Re: Coincidence...

[Author here]

> Are you saying Linux uptake would be better if distros just had a minimum of apps so it would be able to do less? Where's the sense in that?

Well, it's worked for ChromeOS.

What mystifies me is why no Linux vendor has done its own ChromeOS-a-like yet. Ubuntu even has single-sign-on and a cloud storage system: it's ideally positioned.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Coincidence...

But would ChromeOS work for me? To take an example, for graphics (largely tweaking images of patchwork for SWMBO and annotating maps) I use a mixture of Gimp, Pinta, Gwenview (yes, even that has its uses to do more than just display) and sometimes QGIS. They all tend to have aspects for which they're more convenient than any of the others. I suppose if I had to use just one it would be Gimp but really any single one would be a pain. Maybe I should try Krita but the UI looks as if it's intended for the coloured pencil department and I most certainly wouldn't fit in there. What would ChromeOS offer for that?

AFAICS ChromeOS has its biggest audience in schools where it's possible to tell users that that's what they're getting and they're not likely to be given tasks that exceed its capabilities.

But I agree with you that there's scope for a Linux distro tweaked to online use. Say something like NextCloud as a back end hosting the user's home directory through davfs with server URL as part of the sign-on screen for security (if forced to divulge a "password" the URL might not be the usual working server).

[Liam Proven]

Re: Coincidence...

[Author here]

> Linux for consumers needs to be a single desktop environment

I have good news for you, then. It has one.

I have bad news, too.

It's GNOME.

But there's less-good but still good news. You have alternatives, unlike on Windows, unlike on MacOS.

Which is why there isn't just one.

Even in China a third of a billion PC users have a choice: UKUI or Deepin Desktop. Both are better than GNOME, but both are Windows knock-offs.

[Steve Davies 3]

Re: Gnome

is IMHO worse than Windows. Every release is (again IMHO) a huge step backwards in usability. I'd love to have some of what those devs are smoking. It must be pretty strong stuff.

Whoever decided that two buttons on a window was better than three is clearly (again IMHO) mentally deranged. Luckily, it can still be fixed (for the time being)

Are the Gnome devs all hoping to get a job at MS like Pottering?

Boo-hiss.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Gnome

Whoever decided that two buttons on a window was better than three...

Not to mention the genius who decided that having two identical "gear wheel" icons doing completely different things was a good idea.

[A.P. Veening]

Re: Coincidence...

I must confess I understand your frustration. I myself am not so averse to using the command line, but I know I am in the minority.

[sabroni]

Re: I myself am not so averse to using the command line, but I know I am in the minority.

Not among the devs I work with you're not. All the cool kids seem to think command lines are ace and user interfacers are loser interfaces.

I've been doing this long enough to remember when the command line was the only option so I'm much happier with a UI.

[Liam Proven]

Re: I myself am not so averse to using the command line, but I know I am in the minority.

[Author here]

> I'm much happier with a UI.

Missing letter?

Makes the whole message very ambiguous. GUI? TUI? A command line is a kind of UI.

[doublelayer]

Re: I myself am not so averse to using the command line, but I know I am in the minority.

Of course devs like the CLI, as I know from experience as one of them. We like it for two reasons:

1. We spend a lot of our time in it to do our work, so we're pretty familiar with using it.

2. It's a lot easier to design an interface on the command line than to build the graphical UI components. To build a GUI, you have to write so much code and link it together, none of which is the interesting thing you're trying to solve. If you want it to run on multiple operating systems, your tools for doing so are restricted to a smaller number of frameworks, and each of those comes with some restrictions. Yes, we know how to do it, and when it is necessary, we do, but the first version of something to see if it works is usually tested as a CLI program. This is also one of the reasons why you see some apps using web frontends; it's a lot easier to write something that will work well on multiple platforms if you do it that way.

Of course, good programmers recognize when the CLI is a valid option for the program they're writing and when a GUI is needed, and when the program is to be run by nontechnical people, the CLI is usually not a valid option. Even when it's mostly run by technical people, whenever there are too many elements to fit well on the console, it is time to build a good GUI around it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Coincidence...

I'm not sure why you are having to do that unless you installing something not in the package manager. You would have to do exactly the same in windows if you tried to install something that wasn't packaged into an exe installer package although you wouldn't need to go to the command line rather go and find the various things it needs and install them. If you are compiling software from source you would have to do the same and more on windows. The package manager usually installs all the dependencies automatically on pretty much all distributions.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Coincidence...

I'm not sure why you are having to do that unless you installing something not in the package manager.

Developers are increasingly avoiding package managers by distributing as, for example, AppImages.

[doublelayer]

Re: Coincidence...

At least some of this looks to be sites online that list instructions for installing packages that could be installed from the package manager, but the instructions only give the CLI commands to do it. The author of that assumed that a Linux user would be familiar with those, as many of us are, so they just gave instructions for that. I typically install things from repositories from the command line because I have seven terminal windows open already, and so I may fail to consider how many people aren't using that method. The user, in turn, isn't aware that they can read those commands and use a GUI tool to do that.

That is assuming that everything is in the repositories. If it's something that has its own repository, they're almost certain to describe the installation procedure to add that repository to the package manager using CLI commands. I'm sure the GUI applications are capable of doing it, but it's still going to involve finding keys from a site and putting them in a box, and that's going to require more explanation to the user. The set of software that comes as downloaded loose binaries or packages, Snaps/Flatpaks/AppImages, or tarballs with scripts in them, is also large enough that it can cause problems for the unfamiliar user. I confess to being at least partially responsible, because my installation instructions are usually somewhat terse and assume the Linux user knows and is comfortable with the CLI. I don't do a step-by-step instruction on the various GUI options. Maybe I should consider it, but most of my tools are useful to other programmers so it's likely to require action from developers of more user-focused tools.

[Throgmorton Horatio III]

Re: Coincidence...

Interesting. I'd found Linux to be like that in the past, and some versions that want to be completely free of any kind of proprietary software sometimes still are, but many do pretty much work out of the box.

For a decade my personal computing was on Linux*, but I returned to windows in 2014 because Adobe Lightroom was my photo development app of choice, and it's windows or Apple OS only. I still tinker with the odd distro that looks interesting, usually running live off USB, but have no *reason* to use anything else as my main OS these days.

*I miss Pear Linux, and was very sad when David Tavares closed the project.

[Liam Proven]

Re: Coincidence...

> *I miss Pear Linux, and was very sad when David Tavares closed the project.

I vaguely remember, I think, reading that Apple bought him out?

[corb]

Re: Coincidence...

Linux applications can typically be installed with click or two via whatever "software store" is used. The real difference re: Window is that Linux distributions maintain repositories of software that their software stores access, while Windows apps are strewn around the internet in uncurated places. Linux also deals with software dependencies as part of the install process, something I recall Window does not do, so it's up to an individual software vendor to package those in the installation file. That's one way Windows gets cluttered up with redundant files.

Getting executable code to execute by clicking on an icon is simple in Windows and Linux. It's typically discouraged in Linux because installing random code from random sites can play havoc with the curated software management tools distributions use.

A finer grained approach to installing Linux software -- libraries, drivers, etc. -- typically requires uses of the command line or a GUI tool that does the same thing.

The web is littered with haphazard and outdated and often lazy and unnecessary "guidance" to install X, Y or Z via the command line. (It's also easier to do than writing a piece leading someone through the use of a GUI tool.) The first recourse for Linux users should be the GUI tools present in the distrobution.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Coincidence...

"Linux applications can typically be installed with click or two via whatever "software store" is used."

I have sometimes wondered if the "store" app in most Linux distros could be improved by hiding, in a "general user" mode, anything that is not directly a runnable app, possibly even limiting to GUI apps only, for those less technically minded users who are simply browsing the repos looking for interesting stuff to play with. Most of the solutions I've seen tend to be "show everything, including the 300 libraries that are only ever installed by other apps" and/or "group stuff by relatively wide definitions, but still include all the libraries etc" causing the useful stuff to be lost in a sea of things most users don't understand or need to know about.

Most users neither care nor want to know about libavcodec, they just want to install and use VLC or HandBrake :-) The sort of person who needs to or wants to install specific libraries are probably using whatever the distro command line installer is anyway, and obviously the GUI installer will have an "advanced" mode too.

[katrinab]

Re: Coincidence...

My take is that the app store should only show GUI apps, and have a very curated list of high quality apps. If you want to install libavcodec or some obscure fork of vi/emacs, then use the command line.

[Jurassic.Hermit]

Re: Coincidence...

Indeed, but that’s why Flatpack exists, giving the average user only what’s needed.

[Dan 55]

Re: Coincidence...

Most Linux distros have a GUI package manager or a "store" now. You just search and select what you want to install and it'll do it.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Coincidence...

Packages where I can click and install are great, but I grew increasingly frustrated by the regular prompts to use the console with half a dozen "get this/get that" commands.

Can we clarify what you're doing to be prompted with "get this/get that"?

The only time I will see that is in some online article entitled something like "How to install $App on $distro". The first thing to do is to pop open Synaptic or whatever your distro's software manage might be and see if it's there. If it is just select it for installation and click Apply or whatever it might be. If it's not in the distro the next step is to look to see if it has an install option - a .deb file or whatever - for you OS, FlatPak or Snap. If it has, use that. You may have to download and run the installer on it from the command line. Alternatively you may have your installer set as the browser's handler for that sort of file.

Only if neither option is available would you need to resort to hand-knitting and you're probably getting into the realms of somebody's pet project which might be interesting, might get into the mainstream distro repository or might disappear without trace.

[Bloodbeastterror]

Re: Coincidence...

"You may have to download and run the installer on it from the command line."

Exactly the point I was trying to make. I'm perfectly happy with Android Fastboot/ADB, so I'm not averse to the command line as such, but since Linux is hailed as the obvious alternative to Windows (I wouldn't touch Apple with a bargepole) my point is that to install a Linux program I shouldn't need to poke around under the hood downloading repositories and running six commands when a single click on a Windows .exe does it for me.

Maybe I'm lazy, but if Linux really does want to become more consumer mainstream then it will have to look harder at what new users want. Experienced propellorheads may find it a breeze, but even as an experienced computer user I struggled with the frustration to the point where I just gave up. Until Linux cracks this it's doomed never to have more than a small share of the consumer market.

[Liam Proven]

Re: Coincidence...

[Author here]

> even as an experienced computer user I struggled with the frustration

Computers are not a monoculture and they should never be. If you are only experienced in Windows, you are not an experienced computer user. You're an experienced _Windows_ user and that does not mean you know anything whatsoever about computers in general.

Sorry if that sounds harsh or mean but it's true.

You may be able to drive a car but that does not mean you can ride a motorbike.

You may be able to swim across a lake, but if I put you on ice skates, you will not be able to move 10 feet, even though you have probably spent most of your life standing on 2 feet and using them to move around. Same for skis, same for roller skates.

Sadly I have had to work with lots of people who think they are techies and think that they know their way around IT and computer systems, but all they know is Windows, and take that away from them and they are baffled... and naturally, they get angry and blame the computer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Coincidence...

Sorry, but this is an insane take.

"IT and computer systems"? what are you talking about? End or 'mid' user computing? If so, then knowing your way around Windows - GPO, AD, and the like is absolutely more valuable than any Linux experience in a modern corporate setting. You might not like that, you might not agree with it, but its true.

That being said if you're talking about databases, then being able to set up an Oracle RAC instance on a cluster of VMs running Oracle Linux, or Postgres on RHEL is far more valuable.

To be honest, if _all_ you know is sysadmining Linux, you are less "valuable" in the real world than any of the above. You are welcome to call yourself a techie though, smug in the fact that you're using a different flavour of 1s and 0s that you don't have to pay for.

It is this sort of strange elitism that compounds with the strange "hard of use" features of Linux flavours that will forever keep the "year of desktop linux" half a decade away.

[keithpeter]

Re: Coincidence...

@UrethralAnts

Yes, certainly, if I want my door re-hung I don't phone a plumber, so I take your point. 'IT' isn't one thing, it is a huge range of skillsets and occupations that arise in response to the needs of the market.

I suspect that the post by Liam was within the framework of desktop operating systems and the sort of questions that arise from ordinary people performing (or attempting to perform) mundane tasks on those.

Within that very small circle on the Venn diagram, Windows is hugely the most common system and therefore what people are used to. So they can be somewhat discombobulated when meeting a different system.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Coincidence...

"You may have to download and run the installer on it from the command line."

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

And the point I was trying to make, if you'd quoted the next sentence: "Alternatively you may have your installer set as the browser's handler for that sort of file." is that you may have the option of doing it from your browser by setting gdebi as the handler for .deb* files.

It would have to be set up to require a password to d o that. Whether you think being able to click and open as root random files from the internet is a good idea is another matter...

Convenience is not everything.

* Or whatever is appropriate for the package manager.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Coincidence...

You still haven't said what you were doing to get told to get this and get that at the command line. Were you writing from your own experience or just repeating what somebody wrote on the internet which was repeating what somebody else had written on the internet who'd seen an actual developer working away at the CLI because,as somebody said above, that's what developers do quite a lot of the time?

Or possibly seen somebody like me hacking away to reformat some big text file because Unix, with its CLI toolkit does that better than just about anything else on the planet and has been doing it for decades. You could do that on Windows, of course but you'd either have to install WSL or Cygwin because unaided Windows isn't going to cut it (or paste it or tail or sed it either).

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Coincidence...

It's also worth noting that it's that usual when adminning Windows or supporting Windows users to end up in a command shell running commands tor powershell scripts to fix stuff :-)

Most Windows users will run screaming from that and leave it to their support people to deal with (or don't have access privileges to do it anyway.) Using Linux in a corporate environment would almost certainly be locked down in a similar manner and most normal users would rarely, probably never, see a command line.

On the other hand, Windows Troubleshooters, while not always that great, do seem to manage to fix quite a lot of the basic stuff that normal everyday users come across, they just don't seem to know they are there. I know our 1st line support report a fair number of users "issues" are solved using them and try to educate the users on how to use them for future reference.

[katrinab]

Re: Coincidence...

'apt install packagename' is way easier than locating and finding some random .exe

For that matter, 'winget install vendor.packagename' is also a superior way to do things on Windows.

[Roland6]

Re: Coincidence...

>” You may have to download and run the installer on it from the command line.”

However, the distribution under discussion is “ non-techie friendly Zorin”

The only thing that isn’t clear is whether the original poster was trying to install packages that were part of the Zorin bundle or some other packages intended for a generic Linux install.

[LionelB]

Re: Coincidence...

"I suspect that my difficulty is not with any distro but with Linux itself. Specifically, the installation of programs. Packages where I can click and install are great, but I grew increasingly frustrated by the regular prompts to use the console with half a dozen "get this/get that" commands. ... but I don't understand why Linux, knowing what it needs to install, demands that I spend time typing abstruse commands to get the job done."

But does it? I guess you are talking about applications which are not available in your distro's repositories. Out of genuine interest, which applications are we talking about here? Reason I ask is I use Linux (Mint, mostly, as it happens) at home and at work, and for many years I have hardly ever had to install software from external sources. Even then, that has generally been a case of downloading a supported package (e.g., a .deb) and installing via the supplied (GUI) tools; no command-line required. The odd exceptions have been work-related (e.g., Matlab, as I do scientific analysis and programming), and that has generally been the same on any platform, including Windows: download installer, run installer. Again, no command-line required.

So what kind of software are we talking about here? Genuine question.

_{I fully acknowledge that there is some software where Linux equivalents may be unsatisfactory or unavailable, in areas such gaming, graphics and audio - but we're not actually talking about that here.}

[Bloodbeastterror]

Re: Coincidence...

A good question for which I'm afraid I don't have an answer. I don't remember which packages/programs I wanted to install - it was several months ago and I haven't revisited Linux until last night.

[Liam Proven]

Re: Coincidence...

[Author here]

Obviously I think you are wrong, but I think the key detail that you said that gives the whole game away is this:

> I'm soft after so may years on Windows where a click on a .exe does the work,

That is the SINGLE WORST WAY to install software on any computer and any operating system ever invented, and it should have been banned when the Internet started rolling out to PCs.

It is to the credit of the evil marketing lizards at MICROS~1 that they have trained a billion people to do this.

_Never_ download binaries from anyone you would not personally trust with the front door key to your house and your car keys for the weekend.

MS knows this anarchy is why it has a malware problem, and that's why it has the Windows Store. (It also wants a cut like Apple gets, too, of course.)

Zorin has an excellent app store, which handles 3 different formats and is easier than the MS Store, and you don't even need to pay.

If you are fooling around trying to download binaries, *you are doing it wrong*. Don't do that. Not ever, not on Windows, not at all. Don't run anything you just got off a random website. Don't download programs from websites.

If you are typing commands, you are doing it wrong. If you Googled for how to get apps, learn to just trustworthy websites from bad ones, because no site that can be trusted will tell you to type commands.

That is 2000-and-noughties stuff. Don't do it.

[Bloodbeastterror]

Re: Coincidence...

I hear and I shall do my level best to follow... :-)

If indeed Zorin is a straightforward OS with a good package manager that gives me all the things I want to run, bonus. Anything that requires me to run a "get" command is straightaway out the window.

[Liam Proven]

Re: Coincidence...

Good ma— er, blood beast. :-)

[Tron]

Re: Coincidence...

quote: Don't run anything you just got off a random website. Don't download programs from websites.

What you are basically saying is that all software should only be available via a gatekeeper. That makes it very easy for governments to ban stuff. Streaming capture, distributed software, pretty much anything they don't want people to have. It's a recipe for digital fascism.

[Liam Proven]

Re: Coincidence...

Don't be daft.

> What you are basically saying is that all software should only be available via a gatekeeper.

No. I am saying that for unskilled, non-expert users, they should have an easy way to get whatever they want.

And no, nobody should be downloading and running binaries. That's a terrible way to use an OS.

> That makes it very easy for governments to ban stuff.

No, it does not. It is already easy for governments to ban whatever they want, but it has zero effect on people who don't live in that country, and not much effect on anyone sufficiently determined who _does_ live in that country.

> Streaming capture, distributed software, pretty much anything they don't want people to have.

Have you ever actually used a Linux computer?

> It's a recipe for digital fascism.

Nonsense. Utter gratuitous bollocks.

[doublelayer]

Re: Coincidence...

"no site that can be trusted will tell you to type commands."

About that: yes, they do. There are still things that aren't found in a package manager's default repositories or that the default version isn't going to work for. There are a few ways around this, but they usually involve downloading a file of some description or running some commands which will do it for you. The file might not be a binary itself, but if it's a shell script, it's no less dangerous. For many users, the distro's default repositories will contain what they want, and I admit that having to use things that are outside it are more often encountered by me when I'm doing more technical things, but there are times when a user might want something that is not in those repositories.

For example, consider tools like youtube-dl or it's modern equivalent, yt-dlp. These things change very frequently because the old versions stop working very frequently. There's a chance that it was never added to the repositories at all, but for many distros, it's probably in there. By it, I mean a version from six months ago that might or might not work. If you want to use that, or a GUI program that wraps it, you will want something more updated. You can download a binary, you can retrieve it from its Git repo, you can get the Python source from Pip, you can find a custom repository that updates the packages more frequently, but in all of those cases, you will be getting some file or command from the internet and running it on your host and if you don't, you won't have the tool. Your statement might represent what should be the case*, but it doesn't represent what is the case.

* Maybe you think that everything should be in the repositories, but you also know that they can never contain everything that someone might want to use. This is especially true when the concept of non-open source software for Linux comes into play. There are some proprietary programs made available for Linux. I have one that I purchased and sometimes install on my machines, and you can bet that it's not in repositories. Their GUI installer is pretty good for less technical users, although the default installation method is still the CLI installation script, but it does involve downloading a binary from a site and using it.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Coincidence...

I wonder what Windows users do when they hear of something that's not in the Windows store.

[katrinab]

Re: Coincidence...

The idea of the Windows Store being an actually useful way to obtain software is a fairly recent thing. Most people tried it when it first came out, found it wasn't very useful, and didn't come back.

[Dan 55]

Re: Coincidence...

Not ever, not on Windows, not at all. Don't run anything you just got off a random website. Don't download programs from websites.

If you are typing commands, you are doing it wrong. If you Googled for how to get apps, learn to just trustworthy websites from bad ones, because no site that can be trusted will tell you to type commands.

I can't help feel that the hobbyist developer writing programs that will never get in a distro/app store but are useful nonetheless is unwarrently besmearched by this advice.

E.g. NirSoft which hosts small useful Unix-like utilities (do one thing and do it well) for Windows which will never be allowed to get into the MS Store and which also often end up blocked by the Antivirus Industrial Complex in its constant quest to find easy low-hanging fruit justify its continued existence.

[doublelayer]

Re: Coincidence...

Not to mention that Liam makes it quite clear that he does exactly this. In another comment, he explains that he uses a Mac but not the app store on it, which means that to install tools other than the defaults for the OS, he installs them by... downloading binaries from websites. Alternatively, he downloads the code from websites, then compiles them with the compiler he probably got from Homebrew, which he installed by pasting a command from a website. Somehow, this method of installing software, the way that almost everything works at some level, is Microsoft's fault and should never be done. Linux may make it easier by having a repository built in to most distros, but it doesn't prevent it from at times being the only available method to install something.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Coincidence...

"NirSoft which hosts small useful Unix-like utilities (do one thing and do it well) for Windows"

Perhaps they'll even have to run them from the command line.

[Roland6]

Re: Coincidence...

> NirSoft … often end up blocked by the Antivirus Industrial Complex

“Blocked” makes it sound simple, downloading a working file can be challenging and if you manage this expect the AV to nuke it if you attempt to run it. Basically (with Kaspersky) you have to do quite a bit of work before it allows you to download some Nirsoft utilities and run them, just remember to always run them from the same folder/usb drive next time. However, powerful tools that can help when you really need them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Coincidence...

> If you are fooling around trying to download binaries, *you are doing it wrong*. Don't do that. Not ever, not on Windows, not at all. Don't run anything you just got off a random website. Don't download programs from websites.

Well, bugger, that means no WinPython, no Visual Studio, no Thonny, no IrfanView, no Notepad++, no Firefox, no LaTeX, no Doxygen, not even chocolatey (which wasn't as useful as I'd hoped, but never mind) - actually, it means absolutely none of the programs I'm using under Windows, bar those I've written (if I can get a compiler for them, that is: maybe I can hex edit the binary for TCC and bootstrap from there? Can't be too hard... bugger, Notepad won't do hex).

Guess it is back to doing nothing with this box other than browsing the web with Edge, if thst is the only safe thing to do.

PS yes, many of those tools, like LaTeX, Python, Doxygen, are available under Linux, but as the deliverables are to run under Windows let's not make life even more complicated but just stick to one OS at a time.

[katrinab]

Re: Coincidence...

WinPython - available on the Windows Store, though I don't recommend you install this version; and on winget

Visual Studio - available on the Windows Store and winget

Thonny - available on winget

Notepad++ - available on winget

Firefox - available on the Windows Store and winget -- Winget offers more options for different versions

LaTeX - MikTex is available on winget, TeX Live you would have to download

Doxygen - available on winget

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Coincidence...

> Packages where I can click and install are great, but I grew increasingly frustrated by the regular prompts to use the console with half a dozen "get this/get that" commands ..

Have you tried using the built-in Synaptic Package Manager.

[andy the pessimist]

Re: Coincidence...

Using fedora command line.

If you type a command that is not on the system,you are offered the option of getting it from the repo.

You do need sudo/root to complete this.

Command line is a useful method answer so are graphical tools. Use the right tool for you and the task.

[Tron]

Re: Coincidence...

Windows is no longer even a product. Consumers buy a PC and expect it to work out of the box. They do not expect to have to choose or load up an OS or know what one is.

Linux will only be a retail product when people are offered PCs and laptops by a company like Dell, pre-configured with something like Zorin, with all the basics already on there.

And they will expect to be able to plug in any off the shelf scanner or printer or IoS gimmick and have it work.

In short, the bar has been raised. And Linux never bothered to surmount a much lower bar.

The Linux community lives happily in a geek bubble. It has no understanding of retail and no wish to allow ordinary people to join their club. Which is a real pity, as stuff like Zorin is almost there, and Windows just keeps getting worse.

MS doesn't even have to push against Linux or consider it to be a competitor.

[Terry 6]

Re: Coincidence...

It seems to me that Windows used to do things that ordinary people wanted it to do. Including letting them arrange programmes and files to suit their own workflow. At least within the capabilities of software at the time. Successive versions of Windows seem to be removing people's options- simplifying to a lowest common denominator only version, mixed up with what MS's marketing dept.happen to think is the right way..

'Nux however, and I've tried a few different versions, seems to do things that techies and (particularly) the devs want. Making things easier for ordinary users doesn't appear to be much of a priority.

Surely there can be something that sits between these two. That builds on decades of knowledge of what people use computers for and how they use them. That allows users to do everyday operations out of the box- but with standardised, easy to find, ways to do more complex stuff, for those who want to do something more. Not by becoming 'Nux command line experts, but by following instructions that let them achieve what they want. Zorin and Mint seem to work by giving the users a very narow safe path to follow, to do the most basic tasks, But no more.. I should have been able to click on the "Windows Network" icon that was sitting in the Zorin file manager and see the Windows shares that have that permission. And without spending several hours navigating through pages of unhelpful, irrelevant or contradictory advice. Followed by performing several command line incantations until eventually Zorin let me see my shares. I should have been able to navigate directly to those shares by seeing them in a GUI instead of entering a path ( let alone, as some of the advice was telling me, the IP address of the remote PC or creating a folder to "mount" the remote folder/s into). I should then have been able to select thumbnail view and inspected the images to locate the ones I needed.

Should because these are just ordinary, simple activities that a user ought to be able to do* without jumping through techie hoops. But as soon as users of Zorin or Mint depart from a very narrow path they're lost and sinking in The Great Grimpen Mire.

*When my younger daughter was a kid doing her homework she was once able to navigate from her Windows laptop to the main family Windows PC /Photos/ folder share and find the stuff she needed for her homework. It shouldn't be so much more difficult if the laptop is running 'Nux.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Coincidence...

> 'Nux however, and I've tried a few different versions, seems to do things that techies and (particularly) the devs want. Making things easier for ordinary users doesn't appear to be much of a priority.

On what basis *should* that be much of a priority (ignoring all the twaddle about "year of Linux on the desktop" from a small number of strangely shouty people and lazy headline writers)?

The "ordinary users" don't seem to be willing to pay to make it worthwhile for a mass movement to make things easier for them, preferring to pay for MacOS and Windows.

The unpaid Open Source devs and techies are putting in the resources to scratch their own itches. Which is perfectly ok, that is how all this started in the first place. If some of that helps the ordinary user, bonus.

Big Boy Companies that pay the devs to work on non-itchy stuff, like Red Hat, make enough by ignoring the ordinary users[1], so no help from that quarter.

A few companies, like Zorin, do target the ordinary users; how well they manage it, up to you to judge. But how many of their users are actually buying their copy and helping to keep the lights on?

Canonical have been around for a while now, and were touting themselves as "Linux for the people", hence the logo - again, judge for yourself how well that has matched the needs of the ordinary users, but note that Zorin thinks more needs to be done. But Canonical still seem to be soldiering on, so they've found their niche. If you can demonstrate to them that they'll actually make more dosh catering for users that are even more ordinary, present the business case to them.

[1] and still pissing off a good few techies & devs as well!

[Terry 6]

Re: Coincidence...

On what basis *should* that be much of a priority (ignoring all the twaddle about "year of Linux on the desktop" from a small number of strangely shouty people and lazy headline writers)?

Ironically, I sort of agree.

If 'Nux using/making devs were to simply say, "We're the OS for the IT pro and the uberGeek- get off our lawn" and just make stuff too complicated for anyone else, good luck to them.

But they don't. We see on here,all the time, a good range of commentards who'd like 'Nux distros to replace Microsoft.

But if they want distros that replace Windows then they have to create distros to replace Windows.Which to my mind means having both the out-of-the-box simplicity to open, run and store programmes and data how and where they need to, and the possibility of finding clear, consistent help to do stuff that's a bit more complex. Layers.

I'd be saddened if there wasn't user-land Linux for ordinary users who want to escape Microsoft. But I get irritated when the user-land distros lead users astray, getting then started, but then when they want to take a next step leaving them stranded. i.e. If you don't want to lead them on a full journey, don't take them out onto the moors.

[doublelayer]

Re: Coincidence...

"On what basis *should* that be much of a priority (ignoring all the twaddle about "year of Linux on the desktop" from a small number of strangely shouty people and lazy headline writers)?"

It depends on what you want to see happen. If you want to see an option that works if you make it, and that's it, then it shouldn't be a priority. If you want to see it win out over Windows, as some clearly do, then it should be one because users won't switch without it. Whether they will switch with it is another question and by no means guaranteed, but it's not going to happen if people are more confused by Linux than they are by Windows or if IT departments decide that they won't distribute Linux machines because there will be something that is prohibitively difficult to teach their users to do. I'm guessing, based on the second clause in your question, that winning over Windows is not your goal here, but it is useful to note it anyway because it is the goal of many Linux adherents who post on this site or in this topic, for example whenever the idea of whether Linux should be installed on corporate desktops comes up.

However, if it is not your goal, there is another reason to try to make it happen anyway: more availability of the tools you want. If more people use Linux, more stuff will be developed for Linux, and at least some of that will be something you're interested in running. More Linux success also means more compatible hardware. Consider, for example, something I'd like to see more of which is open mobile devices, devices where I not only have the freedom to replace the operating system if I want to but where there is a realistic chance that my replacement will boot up because I'm not relying on some component that the manufacturer is hiding the driver for. I'd like this so I have more control over the software I run, so I can keep devices for longer than typical ones get updates, and sometimes because they let me experiment. If you don't want that, you can substitute something similar that interests you, but the parallel is probably still valid. If the operating system I choose to boot on this theoretical open device is something that works for me because I wrote it but doesn't work for anyone else, then it's not that surprising that people don't build devices compatible with it. If it's something that people can adopt without having precisely the needs and skills that I have, then more people will use it, and the more of those there are, the more of them may have the ability to build hardware that makes it better. The more people that the software pleases, the healthier the system of related technology, and as a user of the software myself, I benefit from that.

[Terry 6]

Re: Coincidence...

Icon says all I need to.

[Doctor Syntax]

I followed the alternative applications link. Looked down the list and saw Blue Mail. Wondered what that was and clicked that. The first thing that the Blue Mail web site offered was "Generative email". Is there no escape.

[Graham 32]

I see it uses AI to both pad out emails with waffle and uses AI to summarize emails, removing the waffle. If we all just agree to send succinct emails we wouldn't need AI.

[sgp]

Upvoted for the use of the word "waffle".

[Doctor Syntax]

"Windows users still think it's funny to joke that running Linux means learning to build your own OS from sticky tape, glue, toothpicks and cardboard tubes. It's not like that anymore and hasn't been for most of this century"

Not only has it not been the case for most of this century but, as a Linux user, it seems to me that this is exactly what running Windows has become. I have one old laptop with a W10 partition on it which isn't used much but I do tend to force myself to go through the pain of regular updates.

To get from the menu to where Windows update starts to throw dots across the top of its window probably takes about as many clicks but more time than getting from a Linux menu to Synaptic starting to run the actual upgrades. Note that to get there for Synaptic includes having completed the equivalent of that throwing dots stage. Note also that Linux, even using sudo, takes a stronger line on security then Windows and will have required a password to run Synaptic so the time to do that will have been included. (If the inconvenience of a password is what puts you off using Linux, there is something seriously adrift with your priorities.)

If I choose to do so I can review exactly what packages Synaptic is going to upgrade and I can watch the commands streaming smoothly past (Windows is still throwing dots). With Windows I will eventually see a rather opaque short list of updates it proposes to install including the one that it failed to install last month and the month before plus that same Intel display update that seems to get installed every month and comes back next month.

If I'm lucky Windows will install these with only a single reboot needed. The reboot will, of course, take ages to complete because although it also took ages to get to the reboot a lot of the updates are done at the reboot stage. With Linux reboot is almost always confined to kernel updates which, running LTS kernels, aren't that frequent and is simply a matter of restarting as and when is convenient so that the new kernel, which is ready and waiting, can be used. For everything else the executables are simply put in place so that next time a program is executed the new binaries are used. Services are written to be restarted so if a new version of a service is installed that's what happens. In many years I've seen exactly one service that was so low level it needed a reboot but, again, not urgently but just in the normal course of shutting down and starting up again

In practice I find it's even quicker to fire up the terminal emulator, su and run three apt commands than click around menus but if GUI is your preference then that's fine but this elephant in the Windows room has to be addressed:

There's that hanging update on W10 that won't go away. The oh-so-slick, oh-so-clever Windows initial set up created a partition which it has now decided is too small. What's the solution to that? AFAICS you're supposed to shrink your C: drive - assuming it's not too full for that - drop into the command line, look up some info on that too-small partition, take a note of it, delete the partition (no, not your C: drive's partition - did you screw up there?), recreate it to a larger size and run some stuff manually based on the note you took, all at the command line. How's that for string and sealing wax?

[Liam Proven]

[Author here]

> as a Linux user, it seems to me that this is exactly what running Windows has become.

100% this, but people do not notice things that they are totally used to. Windows users have been conditioned to little beeps and bongs and pop up messages every time they plug something in, or unplug it, and it's normal to them.

This is why when Mac users talk about how easy and low-stress it is, the PC users flatly _do not believe them_ and call them brainwashed, cultists, fanboys, etc.

I am a Mac user too. I am typing on a Mac right now.

I don't use the App Store. I don't have any payment methods on my Apple Account. I don't have an iPhone or an Apple Watch. I run almost entirely FOSS apps and a few bits of proprietary freeware, like Skype, Google Drive, Dropbox and things. I don't have an Apple mouse or keyboard or trackpad. (I hate the things.) I have a clicky mechanical keyboard and a cheapo Acer wheelmouse.

The way I use Macs is deeply alien to habitual Mac users and they don't get it. No gestures. No halo effect. No automated sign-in. I don't even use Safari or iMessage.

They don't get why I'd want a Mac if I don't want any of that, but the thing is, to me it's a fast, silent, stable, FOSS Unix box. (With no APT command.)

I talked with a loyal Fedora user last week. He likes it. He said "every time they get a new version, I back up my data, format, reinstall, and copy my files back. It's great, it's always super fast and it's really easy!"

My oldest working Ubuntu install started out as version 13.10.

It's all what you're used to.

There _is_ no walled garden around macOS. You don't _have_ to use any of the Apple stuff. You don't need to jailbreak it or root it or anything. You are one `sudo` away from root at any moment. It is perfectly usable as a free Unix, with the same suite of apps I use on Linux, from Firefox to VirtualBox to Panwriter.

Linux users don't get why I'd use a Mac. Both Windows and Mac users don't get why I use Linux.

I don't get why millions of techies use Windows when there are better alternatives sitting right there with their keys in the ignition.

But they don't know how to drive. They think they do, but actually, they only know how to press the Start button and state their destination.

This includes Microsoft. I drive Windows with the keyboard. It's a lot faster. It makes the whole OS like Vim to an experienced skilled user. I only use the mouse for web browsing. But only blind people know how to do that now, and Windows 11 makes it very plain that this is true right inside Microsoft itself.

[Doctor Syntax]

"Linux users don't get why I'd use a Mac."

I do. It means you're earning money from it and are prepared to pay accordingly. Before I retired I used to run SCO on a laptop as a stable Unix platform and it was on client's servers as well. If they'd not played silly buggers instead of realising they needed to cut prices so that they could compete with free but, at the time, very immature, I might be doing so still.

From my PoV Mac laptops all seem to have screens too tiny for my ageing eyes.

[Liam Proven]

> It means you're earning money from it and are prepared to pay accordingly.

I don't buy the things _new!_ I'm not _crazy_ or something.

> From my PoV Mac laptops all seem to have screens too tiny for my ageing eyes.

My own one is a 27" iMac with a 27" second screen. I had to buy a stand to make the 2nd screen portrait, because it's so huge it was literally giving me neck ache having them side to side. I don't want a screen any bigger than this, thanks.

I don't personally have any of their laptops because I can't stand their flat keyboards and buttonless trackpads. I do have a work MacBook Air, which is good for travelling and some things, but it's a bit unpleasant to type on. I wouldn't personally buy one, though, and the Arm-powered iMac doesn't appeal at all. Smaller, fewer useful ports, less expandability, and so thin there's not enough room for an Ethernet port and that's banished to the (proprietary) power brick. No thanks.

[Cloudseer]

I used to run a Mac as my daily driver, I installed a bunch of popular gui automation tools, setup keyboard macros, tweaked the animation speeds, failed to find a satisfying multiple monitor full screen workflow, and waited ages for homebrew to finish updating my open source apps.

For me Linux works more the way I want it, adapted to how I work. Most people don’t sit behind a screen 7 hours a day and don’t share my requirements.

[Msitekkie]

I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

Biometric logon using fingerprints instead of passwords has revolutionised accessibility on phones. Windows has this capability too with Windows Hello, albeit the hardware support isn’t great (try buying a keyboard with a fingerprint sensor…). Unfortunately Linux designers don’t seem to have noticed this usability revolution and are missing the opportunity. It’s the red line that’s stopping me going for Linux to avoid having yet another Windows interface design foisted on me with Windows 11.

Unfortunately desktop environments are becoming les and less relevant as usability is what sells - hence Windows original success.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

Repeat after me:

A FINGERPRINT IS AN IDENTIFIER, NOT A PASSWORD

If you're not sure about that, try changing your fingerprint as you might change a password.

[doublelayer]

Re: I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

It depends on your security requirements for passwords. There are things where the password is not very long or complex because the user believes, correctly or not, that more complexity is not required, where a fingerprint is as secure. This is valid for systems you control, because if your fingerprint is compromised in some way, you have the freedom to turn off the fingerprint access and use something else instead. There are certainly situations where a biometric is considered more secure than it is and therefore the system using it is improperly configured, but there is nothing in it which prevents it from being used as a password for low-security systems.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

> if your fingerprint is compromised in some way

Such a mild sentence for something that can hurt so much.

[doublelayer]

Re: I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

If someone is going to the level of cutting off your finger, your password is probably not too secure either. If I'm next to you with a sharp knife and I say "tell me your password or I'll cut off your finger", it's likely you will tell me the password if I sound like I mean it.

What I was thinking of for fingerprint compromise is someone going to the effort to get a good impression of your fingerprint, then applying it to something the reader will recognize as a finger. Depending on the quality of the reader, this can be really basic or it can involve more effort, but it doesn't involve physical harm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

Using an identifier to gain access still doesn't make it a password. It just means you've gained access based on your identity, without any password. You gave it the user name only.

I notice that my 'phone lets me wake it up using a fingerprint - but still demands a proper password as well from time to time - 100% of the time after being woken with a fingerprint first time after a shutdown.

I also notice I can apparently[1] select a user profile depending upon the fingerprint - almost as if it is an identifier.

[1] never actually bothered, but it could be interesting to try: one profile for the left index finger, another for the right, just so I can say I don't let my left hand know what the right hand is doing.

[doublelayer]

Re: I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

Your distinction between a password and an identifier is firmer than it is in reality. Theoretically, a password is also just an identifier, just one that theoretically only you have access to. A good enough fingerprint is also something that's not trivial to look up and provide, so it's also something that you have uniquely easy access to. The problem comes because it's not as easy to guarantee that nobody else has it. For something that needs harder security, that risk makes a fingerprint a bad choice. There is a reason that my fingerprint reader remains unused. If you're using a system where your password is an easily guessed string, as many people do, that password probably isn't more secure than a fingerprint.

There is nothing intrinsic about a fingerprint that prevents it from being a password, though it is prevented from being a good password. The analogy to a name is flawed. I know the names of many people, so simply asking for the user's name is not a valid password. I do not have the fingerprints of any person other than myself, so they are not useful to me as identifiers.

[Terry 6]

Re: I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

I agree. In computer terms a fingerprint is just a sequence of numbers. Numbers that aren't readable in a normal way because they're sequenced and en/decoded from teh finger pattern by the device's algorithm.

And a password is a.....sequence of numbers. A sequence encoded by the user as keyboard characters then decoded by the device.

But fingerprints are stored locally- on the end of a finger. Which is more secure than a password on a post-it note because they are truly unique and not immediately accessible by miscreants.

[Adair]

Re: I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

Seriously? Wow, I hope you make excellent use of those saved seconds.

Actually, it would be nice to have the option to simply incorporate biometric login, etc. It'll probably come in due course.

But it's absence as a serious reason for eschewing using Linux? Wow, but then it takes all sorts.

[LionelB]

Re: I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

See fprint - as implemented in Gnome, apparently.

I do find it a little far-fetched that you find this a "usability issue" show-stopper for the desktop (sure, I get it for mobile phones and tablets), especially as you remark that the hardware support isn't great anyway. I mean, a usability revolution on the desktop!? How many times a day does the average desktop user actually need to log out and/or lock their screen? I can only imagine you have some unusual work scenario.

Apart from that, I don't really see any great usability advantages for Windows over Linux.

And desktop environments as we know them may indeed be on the way out for many usage scenarios, but for very different reasons (e.g., the move to cloudy services).

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

"It’s the red line that’s stopping me going for Linux"

(Ignoring the biometrics/passowrd argument, other have already made that point)

While I can't speak for any/all Linux distros or any other OEMs, the diags tool I use on a daily basis for Lenovo laptop repairs is based on some Linux version or other and includes drivers for the fingerprint reader test, so it's doable. And if it's doable, I'd assume at least some Linux distros support it.

I'm currently running FreeBSD 13.2 on an ancient i5 based Toshiba Tecra and according to dmesg:

ugen0.3: <vendor 0x08ff Fingerprint Sensor> at usbus0

I've never felt the need to see how the driver works or interacts with the OS though, but the fact it identifies at a Fingerprint Sensor bodes well. Normally, device that need special drivers or are not supported generally show us an unknown device. Having said that, I just googled "freebsd fingerprint reader support" and the very first link is a blog post from 2014 explaining how to set it up and referencing it being based on earlier Linux support.

[CatWithChainsaw]

Re: I bet in spite of the usability angle, there is little to no fingerprint support

"Revolutionary"? Surely you jest.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm....

"And, handily, unlike Linux Mint, it detects when running in a VM and offers to install the guest additions for you automatically."

If this is VirtualBox, would these be the guest additions that require a license from Oracle, perchance? We had an interesting few months trying to find all the people who had installed them when the demands from Oracle started coming in...

Not a good decision - I doubt that something that immediately lumbers you with a licensing liability is a good thing...

[Liam Proven]

Re: Hmmmm....

[Author here]

> the guest additions that require a license from Oracle, perchance?

No. You are wrong, and furthermore, you are questioning my professional knowledge, and I am not OK with that.

The guest ADDITIONS are free, open source, and are in the Ubuntu repositories.

https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=virtualbox-guest-x11

The VirtualBox EXTENSION PACK is proprietary, and must be licensed.

https://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/7.0.14/Oracle_VM_VirtualBox_Extension_Pack-7.0.14.vbox-extpack

Learn the difference, and kindly presume that I do actually know what I am talking about.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmmmm....

Thank you for the clarification.

I was not questioning your knowledge, I was asking for clarification, and with much the same humour you use in your articles.

Oh, and I'm sure you will be the first person to say that you shouldn't automatically believe what you read online. Don't berate me for not automatically assuming you have it right.

[semipro]

I am not going to pay for stuff I can get for free...stay pure...do not kowtow to distros that force you to pay for a bundle and act as if they are doing you a favor--I do not care how "cool" the desktop environment looks...

[Liam Proven]

That's fair enough and a perfectly legitimate POV.

I do think there's room for both.

I'm glad there is a professional paid tier. SUSE paid my salary for 4 years and that was very handy thank you. Red Hat pays for a huge amount of Linux and FOSS development.

They don't have much to offer a random home user, though. But Zorin does, and good for them.

And of course if you don't want all the bundled apps, you can grab the free edition, and if you don't want GNOME -- which personally I don't -- you can grab the Lite edition for free as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they give you that option.

Just, don't be the one to complain when, one day, you can no longer get that Zorin distro: "now I can only get these ones that the geeks cobble together for other geeks, why don't they ever prioritise the ordinary user?"

[billdehaan]

Like a new bicycle with training wheels

I used a lot of Unixes (Nixdorf, Siemens, HP-UX, RS/6000, but mostly SunOS/Solaris) in the 1980s and 1990s, but I never really did much with Linux, other than set up servers in it.

Back then, it was a great OS to run on decommissioned Windows machines as headless servers. Firewalls, backup, FTP and NNTP servers, etc. were great, but it wasn't really a user-friendly daily driver. Despite all the claims otherwise, there was simply too much tinkering needed with obscure configuration files for the average user to bother with it.

Today, with Windows pushing people away with all of the unavoidable and intrusive telemetry and snooping, not to mention unwanted AI nonsense, more people are looking at Linux than before.

I've played with Zorin, and I like it. Although I run Mint as my daily driver, Zorin has a lot of things to recommend it, especially for new users.

Complaints that it's using a two year old kernel don't really mean much to potential users who prefer to stay on their existing OS. Microsoft usually has to drag people kicking and screaming to their new OS, by discontinuing security and support for their older OS. Zorin may be running a two year old kernel, but (a) it works just fine, (b) the differences between it and the latest version aren't likely to be even noticed by new users, and (c) it still receives updates and security patches.

It's entirely possible that new users may outgrow Zorin, and decide to move to Mint (or Ubuntu, or Manjaro, or Debian, or whatever) , but in terms of friendliness for first time users, I haven't seen anything close to it. Not only is it very approachable for Windows users, it's surprisingly similar to MacOS, depending on which skin you select during the installation.

In many ways, I prefer the UI over Mint. Mint has a number of things that aren't available in Zorin (at least not easily), so it's not really for me (although I may set up another machine with it soon), but for expat Windows and MacOS users, it's won over quite a number of friends who are in the "my PC can't run Windows 11 and we can't afford/don't want to buy a new PC, what do we do" camp. And for reasons I don't understand, there are Windows apps that run on Wine under Zorin without problem that give installation and setup faults on Wine under Mint.

For the average home user, where email, an office suite, and a good browser covers 95% of what they do on their machine, Zorin is a much cheaper solution than needlessly spending money on a new PC just to keep doing what they're doing because Windows 10 is expiring.

Zorin definitely has some weak spots, as do all Linuxes. I'm not a gamer, but I'm told gaming on it is still an issue. It's much improved from years past; gaming on Linux has gone from being impossible to merely difficult, but it's still not up to Windows' level. But for non-gamers, I think a huge percentage could switch without any loss in productivity.

[Kev99]

I really wish reviewers would show/list real world statistics on how fat this distros are. How much RAM does it need to function? How much disc does it glom? What CPU will it need to avoid its own shadow. You know, stuff that minor impact on usability.

[Doctor Syntax]

"If you have a geriatric PC that, when it was new, ran Windows 7 reasonably well, then today it will run Zorin OS just fine."

From TFA: "If you have a geriatric PC that, when it was new, ran Windows 7 reasonably well, then today it will run Zorin OS just fine."

I have a cousin-in-law that's been running it on the same PC ever since she got ransomware under W7. It's a couple of miles away so I can't check the spec but it must be a decade or more.

FWIW SWMBO is running full-fat Devuan/KDE on an old HP laptop which I think started life with W2K on it.

[Liam Proven]

Thank you!

I don't think it _has_ a meaningful lower-end spec.

As I said in TFA, it wants a minimum of 35GB for the Education edition. The Pro edition wants more and I specified that in my previous article, I believe.

For RAM, it runs quite well in 4GB and my geriatric test laptop had 24GB in which it flies along. As I said: about the same specs as Win7.

Any modern distro is about the same and they've not changed much in years.

No, if Kev99 has a Pentium Dual Core laptop from 15 years ago that maxes out at 2GB of RAM, this will not run well. Although it will probably work, or try to.

It's not a lightweight distro. As I said, it's about the biggest heaviest-weight distro I've seen, but it still flies along on my 2011 laptop.

[Terry 6]

I'm using Zorin

I replaced Windows on one of my machines-my laptop- because I have no need for Windows on it.

And Zorin is great for most routine tasks.

But with Zorin, as with other 'Nuxes I've tried- straying too far from the marked path leads straight into the swamplands.

And the swamp lands have two components. One is that something just won't work in what I'd think of as a reasonable and logical way and the other is that either there won't be any advice covering that particular issue, though there will be lots that sound the same until I read them and find they're actually referring to some niche edge case; or more often (in my experience) the helpful advice found online to resolve that problem won't quite correspond to what I'm facing. Typically the latter will be an instruction to open something in settings and navigate to a submenu then clink on an item.... but the submenu will have all the items helpfully shown in a screenshot- except the one I apparently need to resolve the problem won't be there . The helpful item was, maybe written two+ years previously but has never been updated. Maybe the functionality I sought has been moved, or maybe removed.

So...With Zorin I wanted to navigate to a shared folder on my main Windows PC. Then choose some photos to bring across.

The nice big Windows Network icon in the file manger doesn't do anything when you click on it (I'm sure it must have a purpose, but it's not obvious what that might be). What I'd hoped to see was that shared folders on the Windows PC would appear as folders in the file manager. Or that the GUI would allow me to navigate to the network location that is the Windows PC and thence to the shared folder. But that didn't work. Searching online I found I needed to to use SMB://pathname instead. But that didn't work.Searching online I found some suggestions that I needed to install the SMB first. I did that. It didn't work. There was a few suggestions that I needed to "mount" my Windows folder ( the suggestion was that I should create a folder specially on the Zorin machine to mount the Windows folder in.And put anything I waned to share into that. Which was no use to me at all. Another delve on the internet and I found some suggestions that I needed to install ( with sudo) something that was a collection of letters. I did that. And then the SMB worked. Though I still had to put in some information in a dialogue box that was slightly ambiguous as to what was required. And then, at last, with SMB://pathname I was looking at the contents of a shared folder. As icons. tens of jpg files with unhelpful file names. And generic icons, but no thumbnails to let me see what each picture was. I pulled a few pictures across, just to see if it worked. It did. Fine. And on my Zorin machine I could then see the thumbnails. But not on the remote PC. Viewing pictures on a shared Windows folder can't use thumbnail view in Zoriin it appears. Though finding this out took a lot of internet searching ( and it may not even be true, since I couldn't find anything definitive).

But even simple things like making the useless, almost invisible, scroll bars more usable were difficult, if not impossible to find. As it happens, hovering over the pitifully tiny, barely visible scroll bar makes them become more prominent, almost to the point of being easy to use.

[jaypyahoo]

Mr. Liam if you get chance also do test drive latest Enlightenment Desktop Environment. It is not easily available as ISO for anyone to test yet.

[Nameless Dread]

Not for me, thanks

Mint user here ...

Ran the core version of Zorin live yesterday but didn't like the 'Fisher-Price' icons. Also, to my disappointment, it didn't install a proper version of Wine, so it wouldn't run Lotus 1-2-3 ( unlike Mint).

Didn't try Virtual Box. I can do that already on Mint. (+ Win XP, Lotus). So no go.

MX Linux is OK;

Tx for OS suggestions, Liam

[Mostly Irrelevant]

Every time I've tried a "Windows replacement" Linux distro I've found it very deficient in many ways. I think the whole idea is not worth pursuing, the advantages of Windows are primarily familiarity and software compatibility. You can't have one of those on Linux and the other is always going to be compromised. It's better to just use a well though-out distro that does it's own thing instead. I personally like Ubuntu (Gnome), but I know there are a lot of people who prefer Cinnamon, KDE, Xfce or something else. Trying to be closer to Windows isn't a worthwhile goal in my opinion, because you get all the negatives and only a few of the positives.

[Joe666]

The vast majority of folks just want to click an icon and be able to do whatever task they fancy. From watching Netflix, to looking at email to browsing the web to doing whatever task the boss wants done that day. Windows is focused on that type of user. Windows, for MS, is a gateway to their other offerings - mostly subscription based. It's focused at driving revenue without the user having to know how things work under the hood. Granted, it's far from perfect but it works for the type of user MS and corporate America wants for its workers. Think how folks use a cell phone. They don't know or care what makes it work. Or a car. Not a lot of gear heads. You don't hear folks talking about liters displaced or gearing ratios. They want to get from point A to point B with AC and entertainment along the way.

Linux has multiple offerings from the highly technical requiring lots of CLI work to distros that offer a Windows-like experience. These multiple distros are Linux's strength and weakness at the same time. I think offerings by Mint or Zorin (and others) stand the best chance to woo the Windows user. I like Zorin's business model - especially the part where they make money. They are incentivized to create a profit and that means they will focus on providing as seamless an experience as possible for the Windows user they hope to convert. For those people with a more serious technical bent there's plenty of distros they can use to solve particular issues (such as TAILS).

The point is that the Linux space is strong enough to be able to convert the MS audience if it focuses and strong enough to support the developer world.

I've programmed, developed, managed, and supported systems for all manner of people and organizations for decades. The focus from senior executives and the requests from end-users has been the same. Whatever applications are needed to run whatever tasks the user and the business wants need to be easy to learn and not subject to tons of arcane practices or commands or require extensive IT support. The goal is productivity and the management of costs. I know - that doesn't always occur. But that's the goal. Management hates hearing that the system is down. Witness the recent McDonald's meltdown. The guy in the store just wants to press the fries button and go home. MS and Apple have been fairly consistent about the user experience they present. The fact that part of the Linux world acknowledges and seeks to emulate that experience validates the offering by MS and Apple. The statement "it just works" is powerful testimony to that.

[MrReynolds2U]

Cannot recommend for older hw

I tried it on an old built-for-Windows 7 Dell PC that I retired a while back. Zorin was completely unusable (installed not test).

This is dispite it previously running early Windows 10 perfectly well (it got very slow as updates piled up over the years). Also note this PC had not been upgraded to an SSD. I will test with an identical model which has an SSD.

This doesn't seem like an OS distro build for anything of vintage so wouldn't recommend the standard version if that's your situation. Obviously when the Lite version comes out, it might be useable.

There were other issues but all trumped by the speed.

[frankyunderwood123]

...not intended to appeal to existing Linux users?

"Zorin OS, like its Irish cousin Linux Mint, is not a distro intended to appeal to existing Linux users."

Wow, now just hold on a minute there El Reg!

I've been using Linux since '95 in various flavours, I used to spend hours trying to get devices drivers working by kernel hacking.

I ran slackware as my primary Desktop OS for 2 years, long before Ubuntu appeared and the days of easy installs and configuration.

I've used Linux in all manner of areas - very familiar with what is under the hood.

Guess what, I use Linux Mint for my Gaming needs. (replacing Pop_OS! because I found it to be better)

Why?

Because it's super easy and I don't waste my time on any setup - it just works.

Yeah, I could install a totally minimal distro, heck maybe antiX Linux and then manually setup everything I need, creating a minimalistic system that'll run all my games with zero bloat.

But that'll take a few more hours and really, I've got terrabytes of disk space ... and I just want to play some games dammit.