Listen, I understand the appeal of recommending user-friendly, beginner-oriented distros like Linux Mint or Zorin OS that may feel very familiar to long-time Windows users. They provide a familiar desktop environment and try to ease the transition. However, by doing so, we risk perpetuating a mindset that Linux is merely a free alternative to Windows, rather than a fundamentally different (and we’d probably say superior) approach to computing.
Linux’s true strength lies in its open-source nature, flexibility, and adherence to the principles of free software. Recommending distros that emulate the proprietary, closed-source look and feel of Windows subtly undermines these core values and does a disservice not just to the Linux community but also to the new users coming to these operating systems. We are essentially trying to promote Linux without the caveat that your muscle memory is going to be challenged by a new environment, which … it definitely will be, in one way or another. We cannot keep trying so hard to accommodate those that prioritize the familiarity they have with Windows as something that needs to remain in their Linux experience; people need to be willing to try something new when they try Linux.
Instead of promoting “Windows-y” distros, we should encourage newcomers to embrace the diversity of Linux by recommending distros that exemplify its unique philosophies. Distros like Fedora, openSUSE, Arch Linux, and others are a good start; maybe GNOME’s desktop paradigm is what someone’s been missing all their life, and they don’t think they hate the start menu desktop paradigm, but they begin to! Maybe an unbreakable immutable/atomic distro is exactly what your elderly relative needs, and their needs are met by Flatpaks! Maybe getting down and dirty with the command line is uncomfortable for your techy friend at first, but they begin to love it in no time!
By exposing newcomers to a unique Linux from the start, we not only provide them with a potentially superior computing experience but also foster a deeper understanding and appreciation for the principles that drive the open-source movement. There is no Linux distro that is EXACTLY like Windows, and people asking for this or something close to this should simply continue to use Windows!
Additionally, recommending unique distros that aren’t based on Microsoft’s paradigms ensures that the demand for non-Windows-y Linux experiences remains strong, encouraging developers and communities to continue innovating and pushing the boundaries of what free and open-source software can look like.
Let’s take pride in Linux’s unique identity, and promote distros that embody its essence. By doing so, we not only enrich the newcomers’ experience but also strengthen the entire Linux ecosystem, ensuring its continued growth and relevance. There is no “better Windows” in Linux-land, because in order to be entirely better than Windows, Linux is often very different!
Been using Linux longer than many Gen Z have been alive. I use Mint and prefer Cinnamon. I like not spending my free time doing system administration anymore, but I enjoyed that for a long time. I can effectively use any graphical environment but I like that Cinnamon is pretty boring and lacks a ton of swooshy flying effects, also customizable without a crapton of customization menus like you find all over in KDE. And I haven’t had to open the dconf editor once to enable hidden options that someone thinks would clutter the settings menu. I do other things on my own computers than play with the computer, that’s what someone pays me to do on their computers.
I think the need to be unique and special is overrated, we have Linux environments that look like they do and they are no less Linux and open source than GNOME and spinning cubes.
For techy people, sure. But in 90% of cases, people moving from Windows are looking for as little a paradigm-shift as they have to endure. I’m sure most regular Linux-users wouldn’t disagree that other distros are cool, but telling someone “use this thing it’s literally nothing like anything you know” is not going to get many takers from the population of people who just want their tech to do everyday stuff.
My take: I don’t recommend distros like mint because they’re windows-y, I do it because they’re good ‘shit just works’ starting points and Linux newbies probably don’t need to be spending 2 hours figuring out why audio doesn’t work or whatever. Once they get their feet under them and learn their way around a shell, etc then they can start playing around with other distros if they like.
I find it hard to think you care about the beginner experience if you recommend Arch.
That depends on the beginner. We should consider which distribution to recommend depending on the user. Not every Linux newcomer is a typical Windows end user.
Apart from that, in my opinion, the relevant passage in the article is more about distributions that stand out from others. In my opinion, Arch is therefore only an example in this case and not a direct recommendation.
