1181
Everything I need is still in in the old settings windows that haven't changed in 23 years
(lemmy.world)
I don't know why I even bother opening the settings app
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
1181 points (98.4% liked)
Memes
45545 readers
1229 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow, I had to scroll past 5 comments to see a Linux circlejerk. What's happening to Lemmy??
This is a post complaining about an operating system. Someone else recommends an operating system that doesn't have this problem. Where's the circlejerk?
It’s just a well-known trope of Lemmy nowadays that whenever any issue with any OS is reported, rather than providing advice for the situation the default response is often “FUCK [OS], USE LINUX”. It’s become so common that it’s essentially now viewed by non-Linux users as Linux users just engaging in a circlejerk of their favourite OS. I know that circlejerks usually require more than one person but the Lemmy hivemind tends to respond this way, so a single comment (that is usually highly upvoted) is viewed as a circlejerk.
I mean, if you want to move away from Microsoft's very weird UI principles and towards an operating system where you'll never be placed in this situation, then that seems to me to be very reasonable advice?
Like, in all seriousness, what advice can anyone give to this individual? No one anticipates Microsoft making the changes OP wants. This is a problem that doesn't exist in Linux and for cultural and technical reasons effectively can never happen within Linux. Linux is free and will remain free forever.
I live in the real world. I know that people's employers might not support them using Linux. However, why is the anger in this situation always pointed at those who are trying to offer a better alternative and never those preventing a switch to said alternative?
Which Linux version?
Also "never be placed in this situation" is a dumb thing to say because Linux is a shell of a consumer operating system compared to Windows.
I'd recommend Linux Mint or Fedora most likely. Debian if you don't need bleeding edge software.
Never is obviously being hyperbolic. However, any significant part of a user's environment is going to be an open-source democratic project. You are less likely to go down bad roads when devs are questioning the intentions of their fellow community members than their corporate paymasters.
Furthermore, in the instance that a tool you use does go in an unpopular direction, the ease of forking FOSS projects means there's a very good chance of someone maintaining a fork or even creating a whole spin-off project that resembles what you want. There are countless examples of this throughout the history of Linux.
Can you help clarify your final point to me? Just because as someone who uses Linux exclusively I find it far more user-friendly than Windows. AFAICT the only thing it fails to offer over Windows is that it doesn't have some particular software packages e.g. Microsoft Office or Photoshop. But that's nothing to do with Linux as an operating system. That's solely an issue of their developers not porting to Linux. If there's something I've overlooked I'd appreciate you explaining it to me.
Nothing in Windows is user-UNfriendly though. Your average user will struggle with linux exponentially more than with windows. For your regular person, Windows is as user friendly as it gets. You plug in a device, any device, and it works. You install a program, any program, and it works. How is linux any more user friendly?
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Windows can often be pretty hostile to the user. Indeed OP's meme is probably my favourite example. For years now settings on Windows have been oddly divided or duplicated between the 'Settings' app, which a lot of people struggle with, and the Control Panel which many people had grown accustomed to.
Further examples of user un-friendliness:
Some historical examples:
In my honest opinion, the only ways Windows is more user-friendly are not even intrinsic benefits to the operating system they produce. They are:
If you gave someone a pre-installed Linux environment they'd get used to it very quickly. The only thing that's stopping manufacturers like Dell from offering this as an option is that it'd worsen their relationship with Microsoft.
Read and un-tick. Not convoluted or hard. If you care about telemetry (or even know what telemetry is) then you can't call this convoluted or hard.
Office still sells as a standalone version if that's what you want. That's also not a Windows thing.
"Heavy pressure" lol. Most people like this because it gives you things like full background backups of your data and ease of use.
But windows being windows means you can move it wherever you want with third party software.
Good thing edge is installed by default then. Windows Search is intrinsically tied to Bing because that's their search engine, and their browser uses bing by default.
lol come on, this is ridiculous. You don't have to use OneDrive at all.
What "storage bloat"? "Excessive hardware requirements"? lol the language you use is so intentionally inflammatory to try and make even the tiniest thing seem like a show stopper. Most people don't even care about "support" - they run whatever version of windows is on their machine until it dies. Again - if you care about support, you can't complain about this stuff.
It's definitely easier too though.
Windows installs are like 5 mouse clicks lol.
Yeah, because the OS is barebones and useless to most people.
Oh no, you have to log in to a computer that you've just installed windows on? The nerve of these people!
Sure, because it vaguely resembles an old Windows UI. Then they'd start using it and realize that doing anything other than using what's pre-installed is much harder.
Yeah, sure. But if you want to completely disable telemetry than it's good as nothing.
It's the same company, and they've shown intent for doing this to Windows. But yeah, it isn't a Windows thing.
Just because people like it doesn't mean they have to push it down their throats. If they like the feature, they can use it. I haven't setup Windows in a while but last time I did I had to put in "[email protected]" or something, that no regular user would know about, to get a local account. That's heavy pressure, because I can guarantee 99% of people going through OOBE wouldn't know about that.
Yeah but why remove it? Also, sounds like you would love GNOME.
First of all, there is no easy way to disable Bing in Windows Search. That's a huge concern for anyone who cares about their privacy, because nearly everything you type into Windows Search is sent to Microsoft servers. Secondly, why does it have to use Bing? All they have to do is add a setting to add your own search engine. It isn't that hard. Thirdly, as the other comment said, Windows has a default browser setting. Search just chooses to ignore it. But that's fine, I guess, because it's all Microsoft! They can do whatever they want, because it's their OS, not yours. Even if you paid nearly $200 for it. This is why Microsoft should've been broken up into to companies, one for the OS, one for the apps. There is a clear conflict of interest between here, and if you can't see it, you must be pouring bleach in your eyes. Anyway, I'll get off my high horse now.
Yeah but they make it really easy to just use it. I don't really have much of a refutation for this one, never used OneDrive.
Storage bloat is an issue. Windows takes up 20GB just for a clean install (source) and just keeps getting larger. A non-clean Fedora Silverblue install on the other hand takes up just 7.5GB. Storage space isn't infinite, even today there are plenty of laptops being sold where Windows takes up nearly a tenth of their storage space. And so are excessive hardware requirements. Windows 11 doesn't need a TPM, but Microsoft makes money off of nearly every computer sale, so now it does. And even if it does truly need some high requirements, then that is just an indictment of the quality of the operating system.
This one is hard to refute, because usually everyone's experience with Linux is influenced by their previous experience with Windows/macOS. I have installed Linux on some friends' computers where they needed to get a new laptop anyway because Windows was unusably slow, and they picked it up right away. I did use Cinnamon and Plasma in two instances so yes, they are heavily based on Windows' design, but you cannot argue it wasn't easier. On a side note, I'd really be interested in studies over which is easier, for people who have never used a desktop operating system before.
You're not even trying. No, they aren't. And I won't say Linux installs are either. But a Windows install requires you to install once or twice during the install process itself, not to mention after for drivers (foreshadowing!). You also, if you don't care for Microsoft bullshit, have to fight with Cortana, fight for a local account, disable all the opt out telemetry, not that that disables everything, and navigate using buttons with no contrast against the background. Even the Fedora installer, Anaconda, which is getting a redesign because of its complexity, just requires you to select your language, hard drive, maybe some network and user settings, and then restarts (for the only time) to get network or user settings if it didn't already. All that without telemetry to disable, hard to see buttons, and (nearly) forced online accounts. And also, is so much quicker.
That's a straw man if I've ever seen one. Linux distros (tend to) have live environments, Windows doesn't. I can't be bothered to refute the straw man, because it just isn't true.
This one may be minor, but it's still a problem not present for most Linux users.
Again, this goes back to the issue that most people have used Windows before, and want or expect a similar experience. And not all distros do. A lot of them radically simplify the experience for more ease of use, completely ignoring any Windows designs.
I honestly appreciate the effort you've put in to continuing the discussion. I'm happy to concede that I evidently will not get you, personally, to admit that there's a single thing hostile to the user about Microsoft Windows.
I'm just kind of intrigued as to what your experience of Linux is that you're so certain it's not an alternative for Windows? I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've got some experience with Linux. However, your comments about it being 'barebones' or saying Linux has 'an old Windows UI' make me feel as if you might not have.
Furthermore I'm happy to be sold the positive case for Windows as software. I'll let you know I'd view arguments along the lines of it coming 'pre-installed' more as an endorsement of Microsoft's business practices than Windows as software.
They are the vegans of OSes. You know why they do it, you know it's not for everyone, yet they have to announce it every time.
I'm here to be jerked off by a Linux user, can anyone let me join in?