There are lots of Ubuntu’s and I use Ubuntu Mate LTS plus Ubuntu pro. That gives me up to 10 years of support on my distro. Mate is an easy desktop, the most like Gnome 2 or even Win XP. As a community driven distro it is doesn’t the more intrusive features of standard Ubuntu. Also Ubuntu Mate is has the best forum I have ever participated in, way better than Mint. It has some of the most knowledgeable users willing to help and every question gets an answer.

I also use Sparky Linux based on Debian which is a semi rolling release which offers a few different desktops, I again use Mate, but Xfce is also available. It’s forum is exceptionally quiet, not sure if that is it is so problem free or if there are not that many users.

I have used PC Linux in the past and did like it, plus the fact it ported Synaptic to it’s OS, but I learned on Debian and apt so decided to stick with that. Which is the best thing about Linux it gives you lots of choices.

It is true to a point. I can’t run Garmin update because it uses .netframe which is to windows proprietary. I can run Quicken but many functions don’t work properly.

Garmin complained there were to many OS’s and not enough users to make it worth them to port it to Linux, but that is no longer true as an appimage will run on any Linux OS. I have asked them to port that to Linux we will see if they do.

I could use GnuCash but I like Quicken more so as long as I have to keep one old Windoze computer around for Garmin I keep Quicken on that too. I hate virtual box and won’t put my financial infromation on one of those online bookkeeping apps.

BS. They all have software center or boutiques now and those are the most common way to install software. If you use a Debian based distro or PC Linux experienced users use Syntapic which is a GUI front-end for APT which is the installation method. The terminal, Synaptic and the Software center all use the same repository so have the same software. All use the terminal, Synaptic and Software centers are just front-end GUI’s that do it for you.

Now if you are a geek, want to compile from source and install tarballs you can do that too, but it is up to you. Also if you want to run servers without a GUI you will need the terminal
For those there is always help at the Distro’s forum.

Amen!

Yes you see this all the time, more stupid FUD from someone that hasn’t tried Linux since 2007. I have successfully used Linux for 16 years without using the terminal very much, and I have a cheat sheet if I do need it as I am a horrible at typing and old and have a poor memory. I actually used the terminal more when I was on Windows to fix Windows issues. Even on Windows I had to find tutorials and copy and paste to the terminal.

I want to thank the author for posting an article that tells people you don’t need the terminal in Linux anymore. More authors need to do this, every article being about the terminal frightens people off.

The one thing you need to use Linux is an open mind, and Windows fans that spread FUD will never have that. What I always wonder is if they hate Linux that much why they read and post on Linux articles? I left Windows 16 years ago because I hate it and have never read or posted on a Windows site since then because I just don’t care. Maybe a Windows use can explain to us Linux users why they have some much interest in Linux if they hate it so much? I have asked this question many times and never got an answer from a Windows user.

It’s 2024 now, and that complaint is pretty much obsolete. I use old equipment that won’t work on the newest Windows.

I assume that you are basing your opinions of personal experience.

“1. Some windows programs do not run at all, even if you just upgrade windows.”
??????????????????

“1. Some windows programs do not run at all, even if you just upgrade windows.”
Once the O/S is installed they don’t. But we’re talking about Linux beginners, especially those switching from Windows. If they want their apps to run, they better care about which file system they are running under. Apps designed with NTFS in mind will not run on a ext4 system.

“3. For the average user switching from windows xp with office 97 to windows 7 with office 2003 is not easier than switching from windows xp to linux mint with libre office.”
Are generalizing based on your experience?
If You had said Win 9x with Office 97 to Win 8.x or Win 10 with the latest version of Office, I would agree with you. but XP to Win 7 is a breeze for most people. Yes, I am speaking from personal experience. Having worked in User Support for close to ten years, I’ve seen literally hundreds of users make the transition with no or only minimal problems. OTOH, switching from Windows to Linux takes major re-training, not because Linux is so much harder but because Windows users find it hard to give up their Windows habits.

1. Some windows programs do not run at all, even if you just upgrade windows.
2. Most computer users do not care about file system differences. They just want to have their work done.
3. For the average user switching from windows xp with office 97 to windows 7 with office 2003 is not easier than switching from windows xp to linux mint with libre office.

“With wine or even virtual box”
This article is about beginner Linux users. Chances are that beginner Linux users will not know how to set up WINE or Virtual Box. Besides, not all Windows programs run well under WINE. Some don’t even run at all.

“You WILL NOT be able to do things ‘the Windows way.’ ”
The O/S has everything to do with it. The file systems are different. ( NTFS vs. ext2, 3, 4, ReiserFS, btrfs, etc) The folder organization and naming conventions are different. The partitioning is different. (Drive C: and/or D: vs. .sda1, sdb2, etc) That is quite a lot of difference for someone switching from Windows to Linux to get used to.

“When you switch from windows xp to windows 7 or 10, there is a learning curve.”
At least the basics remained the same. Going from Windows to Linux takes a little more than learning how to use the Metro desktop.

With Linux Mint KDE or Cinnamon (a user-friendly version of ubuntu) you will never have to use the black-box (command-line). Guaranteed!

“You WILL NOT be able to use Windows programs under Linux.”
This is not true. With wine or even virtual box you can use windows applications. Of course, you will not need to run windows applications in Linux because every windows application has its Linux-counterpart.
“You WILL NOT be able to do things ‘the Windows way.’ ”
This depends on the applications – the operating system has nothing to do with it. For example Chrome and firefox work in exactly the same way under Linux and windows.
“There WILL be a learning curve.”
When you switch from windows xp to windows 7 or 10, there is a learning curve.

In my limited experience it is not the terminal that turns people off of Linux. What turns people off of Linux is 95% unwillingness to change habits or try something different, then lack of familiar or essential software, lack of drivers and fear (maybe irrational, but who knows…) of a possibility one could fry expensive hardware when attempting to install perhaps unsupported OS. Of course, YMMV.

On the other hand pointing out that a nice piece of software, capable of performing many important tasks is installed by default and is common to all Linux distros is not such a bad thing. I will admit I was somewhat attracted to terminals possibilities when I considered switching to Linux many years ago (and I am not a techy). So I did switch and I ended up using terminal a lot. Still in the last five or so years it has been clearly stated that one DOESN’T NEED to use terminal, CLI or type commands in order to use user-friendly Linux distros.

What is a turnoff is that authors of articles about Linux seem to be speaking with forked tongues. On the one hand, they insist that one does not need to know command line, but on the other, the only articles we see are the ones about using the command line to perform various tasks.

When I asked on another site why the articles about command line, the response was that the authors are trying to broaden the users’ knowledge. Unfortunately, that scares off many of those who would like to try Linux and perpetuates the myth that one HAS TO know command line to use Linux. It would be nice if readers saw some articles on how to use GUI tools that are available with most distributions.

You are the first writer that says command line is unnecessary for the use and enjoyment of Linux and sticks to that.

” ” You have to unlearn old ‘Windows’ habits and new ‘Linux’ habits.””
Finger check. That should be “…..and LEARN new Linux habits.’

“if you don’t think Ubuntu is good for a beginner, which distro do you recommend?”
I did not say that Ubuntu is not good for a beginner. It is, IF used as installed by default. The first mainframe I worked on had 131 KILOBYTES of RAM and 29 MEG hard drives so it offends my sensibilities when I am stuck with 500-700 meg of unwanted software. My attitude may seem outdated with the availability of today’s multi-terabyte HDs but old habits die hard.

IMO, to people who have never had a computer, it does not matter whether they have to learn Windows or some popular version of Linux. The learning curve is pretty much the same. When I say ‘popular’ I am excluding the DIY distros such as Arch, Gentoo, Linux from Scratch, etc.

For those switching from Windows to Linux, because of the basic differences between the O/Ss, most of the popular distros present pretty much the same learning curve. Zorin or Mint or ElementaryOS may offer a more familiar GUI interface but underneath Linux is still Linux.

Currently I am using PCLinuxOS which I would recommend highly to beginner Linux users. The install process is as easy as Ubuntu’s. It is a rolling release which means that it does not have to be re-installed every X months because updates are applied as soon as they are released. The PCLinuxOS community is as extensive as Ubuntu’s. They even have their own online monthly magazine.

I also like antiX. It is simple and very configurable, especially it’s Core version. A beginner would not go wrong by installing the Full version of antiX.

“If you need to install more than the pre-installed apps, then you should probably consider getting another distro where all these apps are there by default.”
Following that logic, everyone should install either PCLinuxOS Full Monty or Ubuntu Ultimate. Then they will have not only the proverbial kitchen sink but also the bathroom sink and the bathtub. :-)

Cool, I’ll need to try that, Vasakq! Thanks!

@Robyn, in Linux copy/paste can be done by high-lighting (command, something, anything,…) and then just middle-clicking in the place you want to paste it.

Great remarks and tips, I like this one really a lot: ” You have to unlearn old ‘Windows’ habits and new ‘Linux’ habits.”

Just curious, if you don’t think Ubuntu is good for a beginner, which distro do you recommend?

Sure, a user could never have to install anything additional – it depends on which distro he or she has picked. In any case, if there is a need to install something, it will be a bunch of apps only, not everything, as in Windows. If you need to install more than the pre-installed apps, then you should probably consider getting another distro where all these apps are there by default.

My observations are that the command-line is one of the scariest things to a newbie and probably a big turn-off. All I am saying is you can live without it and still use Linux to the fullest.