There isn't one Linux model for installing software. There's your package manager, sure, and I'd agree not everything can (or needs to be) in there.
We have flatpaks and snaps. We also have AppImages. The last one feels the most like the experience I had in my Windows days just downloading software from random websites, except it's still better than Windows, because it doesn't leave random garbage all over my system and require a potentially buggy uninstaller to remove.
Ten years ago I wouldn't have advised most people to run Linux on their desktop. Windows has gotten worse since then and Linux has gotten better. If we assume your hardware is 100% supported (basically you're using a desktop PC or a laptop model with explicit support), and you don't need any Windows-only apps... I don't see why Linux wouldn't be the better choice.
> I don't see why Linux wouldn't be the better choice.
It's pretty easy to get Linux in an unusable state (for a regular user). Windows it's much more resilient to various kinds of errors, including user errors.
That doesn't exactly line up with my experiences. I have generally had to actively work to avoid Windows from messing itself up. That or put in work to get basic functionality working. A regular user isn't going to be able to do that.
We have flatpaks and snaps. We also have AppImages. The last one feels the most like the experience I had in my Windows days just downloading software from random websites, except it's still better than Windows, because it doesn't leave random garbage all over my system and require a potentially buggy uninstaller to remove.
Ten years ago I wouldn't have advised most people to run Linux on their desktop. Windows has gotten worse since then and Linux has gotten better. If we assume your hardware is 100% supported (basically you're using a desktop PC or a laptop model with explicit support), and you don't need any Windows-only apps... I don't see why Linux wouldn't be the better choice.
reply