I've been running Ubuntu Linux for a long time now (over a decade, started with 8.04). Linux still has it's fair share of bugs but I'll take having to deal with those over running Windows or MacOS any day.

For me the biggest thing is control, with Windows there are some things like updates that you have zero control over. It's the same issue with MacOS, you have more control than Windows but you're still at the whims of Apple's design choices every year when they decide to release a new OS update.

Linux, for all it's issues, give you absolute control over your system and as a developer I've found this one feature outweighs pretty much all the issues and negatives about the OS. Updates don't run unless I tell them to run, OS doesn't upgrade unless I tell it to. Even when it comes to bugs at least you have the power to fix them instead of waiting on an update hoping it will resolve that issue. Granted in reality I wait for updates to fix various small issues but for bigger ones that impact my workflow I will go through the trouble of fixing it.

I don't see regular users adopting Linux anytime soon but I'm quickly seeing adoption pickup among the more technical community. Previously only a subset of technical folks actually ran Linux because Windows/MacOS just worked but I see more and more of them jumping ship with how awful Windows and MacOS have become.

▲

cosmic_cheese 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The control is both a blessing and a curse. It’s really easy to accidentally screw things up when e.g. trying to polish some of the rough edges or otherwise make the system function as desired. It also may not be of any help if the issue you’re facing is too esoteric for anybody else to have posted about it online (or for LLMs to be of any assistance).

It would help a lot if there were a distro that was polished and complete enough that most people – even those of us who are more technical and are more demanding – rarely if ever have any need to dive under the hood. Then the control becomes purely an asset.

▲

8bitsrule 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> It’s really easy to accidentally screw things up when e.g. trying to polish some of the rough edges or otherwise make the system function as desired.

'Similar to Windows' System Restore and macOS's Time Machine', the Linux 'Timeshift' tool can be used to do make periodic saves of your OS files & settings. (They can be saved elsewhere.) Restoration is a cinch.

Mint program 'Backup Tool' allows users to save and restore files within their home directory (incl. config folder and separately installed apps).

▲

debo_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is literally Linux Mint, Zorin, and several other distros. I haven't had to "go under the hood" on my daily driver machines that run either of these distros for over 7 years.

I think at this point people are just (reasonably) making excuses not to change.

▲

cosmic_cheese 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Those and other big distros are better in that regard, but they're still not perfect. Depending on one's machine and needs, there can still be pain.

One recent example I experienced is jumping through hoops to get virtualization enabled in Fedora… it takes several steps that are not obvious at all. I understand not having it enabled by default since many won't need it, but there's no reason that can't just be a single CLI command that does it all.

▲

pessimizer an hour ago | parent [-]

Things like that can be unbelievably annoying and confusing on Windows or Macs, too. Even worse, they can just turn out to be impossible: the company can actively be preventing you from doing the thing that you want to do, refuses to give you enough access to your own system to do the thing you want to do, and/or sells permission to do what you want to do as an upgrade that you have to renew yearly.

These are things that don't happen in Linux. Doing what you want to do might be difficult (depending on how unusual it is), but there's no one actively trying to stop you from doing it for their own purposes (except systemd.)

Also, as an aside, a reason that Windows and Macs might have easy virtualization (I have no idea if they do) is because of how often they're running Linux VMs.

	▲	cosmic_cheese 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		One needs to go a fair ways off the beaten path before they'll start running into trouble like that under macOS and Windows. For macOS in particular, most trouble that more tinker-y users might encounter disappears if guardrails (immutable system image, etc) are disabled. Virtualization generally "just works" by way of the stock Virtualization.framework and Hypervisor.framework, which virtualization apps like QEMU can then use, but bespoke virtualization like that QEMU also ships with or that built into VirtualBox and VMWare works fine too. No toggles or terminal commands necessary. Linux does get virtualized a lot, but people frequently virtualize Windows and macOS as well.

▲

bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's several distros that are fully usable without ever touching a terminal. The control is a gradient, some distros give you all the control and others (eg. SteamOS) lock down your root filesystem and sandbox everything from the internet.

▲

sovietmudkipz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I remember when Ubuntu decided to reroute apt installations into SNAP installs. So you install a package via apt and there was logic to see if they should disregard your command and install a SNAP instead. Do they still do that?

It annoyed me so much that I switched to mint.

	▲	newsoftheday 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with the sentiment but I keep Snap disabled because I like Kubuntu (Ubuntu with KDE) for its rock solid stability.

▲

timbit42 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I've been running Ubuntu Linux for a long time now...Linux still has it's fair share of bugs...

> I don't see regular users adopting Linux anytime soon...

I can see why you think the second statement is true based on the first statements. When Ubuntu switched their desktop to Gnome, they gave up on being the best Linux desktop distro. I'd recommend you to try Linux Mint.

	▲	simgoh 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm curious, can you elaborate on why you believe that changing to Gnome meant they were giving up on being the best desktop distro?
	▲	PlatoIsADisease 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Let me recommend Fedora to you Timbit. Debian family is outdated and builds with bugs upon release. I too was corrupted by Ubuntu's marketing strategy of being popular and using the misleading word 'Stable'.

▲

PlatoIsADisease 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Linux still has it's fair share of bugs

>Linux, for all it's issues

You are confusing debian-family with Linux. Debian family is designed to be outdated upon release. When they say "Stable" it doesn't mean 'Stable like a table'. It means version fixed. You get outdated software that has bugs baked into it.

Fedora is modern and those bugs are fixed already.

Reminder Fedora is not Arch. Don't confuse the two.

▲

stuff4ben 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Meh, I don't care much about control, I care more about getting my work done with the least amount of friction. Macs do that for me. Linux and Windows have too many barriers to make them a daily GUI driver.