My guru has offered Linux debian. I’ve previously used Mint on my laptop (which I’ve now found secreted in a clothes drawer). I found mint easy to use, any one care to comment on how easy debian is to use?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
A point about Linux, it doesn’t manage the Graphical User Interface in the same way as Windows, and many coming from the dark side find that very confusing. Linux can be:
- Configured without a GUI at all, making it possible to fit a multi-user multi-tasking operating system into less than 30Mb. Great for anything embedded: internet router, ethernet switches, wifi extenders, media servers, DRO, oscilloscopes etc. For these applications a GUI is a waste of space and processor power. The user interface is probably a web-page, or a console login only used to configure the thing.
- Configured with any of several GUIs, ranging from lightweight to advanced. Experiment is allowed. In contrast Windows comes with only one GUI that’s built-in, and can’t be removed. It is what it is, and the user can’t change much. The advantage is ordinary users all get the same thing.
Problem for Microsoft is that their approach only suits customers who dislike change! Doesn’t help the chaps who are delivering next generation computing. Failing to keep them happy means Windows isn’t popular in embedded systems, super-computers, or smart phones and tablets. As smart phones and tablets far outsell laptops and desktops, Microsoft are feeling the cold: billions of dollars not coming their way. And Linux and Mac are nibbling at laptops and desktops too. Looks like Microsoft’s strategy is to hook into laptops and desktops with AI capability, so don’t expect W11 to stay the same. All change! And if everything is changing, review all the options.
To answer Duncan’s question, Debian is the mother of a family of Linux distros. Three main ones:
- Debian is the core. Main objective is stability, not look and feel, so the GUI is rather basic and plain. It all works, but rather conservatively and many users prefer more modern behaviour. Others get used to the vanilla flavour and prefer it.
- Ubuntu is based on Debian, but with many modernisations. Friendlier package management system(s), better organised GUI, jazzier look and feel, and more likely to incorporate application updates before Debian. Not quite as stable as Debian, but the Long Term Support releases are very solid.
- Mint is based on Ubuntu, with the same benefits. The most obvious difference is the GUI, because Mint deliberately imitates Windows look and feel, which many brought up on Windows prefer. I tend to see the look and feel as a comfort blanket because Mint isn’t Windows. No registry, the API is different, you can’t just load Windows apps etc. Not sure what the latest position is, but Mint was more popular than Ubuntu at one time. After using Mint for a while it becomes apparent that it’s roots are Ubuntu, not Windows.
- Raspian (Raspberry Pi) is another debian spin-off. Not quite like Ubuntu or Mint! These are small computer variants. Interestingly, every new Pi that’s released gets closer to laptop performance, and there are a bunch of similar small Linux systems eating into Microsoft sales.
My professional experience started with mainframe OS, then minicomputers, where I recommended standardising of SystemV UNIX, later POSIX compliance. Lots of fun with early 8-bit microcomputers long before Bill Gates existed, including CP/M on a machine almost identical to the later IBM PC. IBM didn’t invent the PC! Likewise, early GUI, mostly X-Windows, running on very expensive UNIX workstations. The software existed, but few could afford the computers needed to run it. Had affordable hardware been available, Microsoft wouldn’t exist, but for several years the cheapest way to get personal computing was a PC with very basic graphics. By the time the hardware was sufficiently cheap, X-Windows had lost ground, because millions of users had bought into Microsoft, and it would cost a fortune to retrain them! But all the early CAD and media editing was done on X, not Microsoft. As always time marches on: Apple switched to a UNIX, and Windows-NT is remarkably UNIX-like under the bonnet. Now the hardware in even a cheap domestic computer can run any of the operating systems. And odd things happen, like finding Windows 7 ran faster on a virtual machine hosted by Linux than it did on the bare metal: weird!
Then and now in my opinion, its not really about the technology, more about how well the OS and hardware match human needs: money, training etc. In my case today 90% is met by Ubuntu, so I have no trouble with Raspian. Though very out of practice as a developer and slipping I’m reasonably fluent in Windows technology, and fairly familiar with macOS too. I see more similarities than differences!
My advice is adopt whatever best suits your needs. With one caveat! Being an unthinking fanboy is a damned bad reason for supporting an operating system, as is allowing oneself to become locked in by reluctance to adapt. To me the O/S is just another tool, good enough if it works, change if if doesn’t. Don’t expect Microsoft to keep everything the same; they’re on the move.
Dave