Is Linux difficult-to-use out of the box experience and difficulty in general compared to Windows and Mac a way to wipe...

>like ubuntu is more difficult [...]
All of the foundational aspects are there, but Linux internals can be quite opaque in spite of being open source.

It depends what you are doing. Everytime I use linux it's only a matter of time before some type of issue pops up that takes a while to solve.

Really, there's nothing stopping people from using Linux (see Android), since most people use their computers as facebook and youtube machines.
What you're missing is a library of professional desktop applications.
People use what they use at work at home, as much as people use at work what they use at home.

1. UI is hard
2. UI is hard and takes lots of feedback which from systematic user testing - resource often not available to some enthusiast dev
3. UI is hard and takes centralized authority to deal with and decide how things should be done when in scale of an consumer operating system, but that's not very Freedom
4. X11 is godforaken shit no one really wants to deal with

Linux (Mint, Manjaro, PopOS, Zorin, Elementary) is easier than windows and more difficult (or equal to) than MacOS. It's not really hard to use an OS when people aren't even using it to do anything other than installing and launching apps. W10 got much easier to use compared to w8/7, but it's still like a crippled OS in the long run whereas Linux and MacOS are very stable, ignoring MacOS being run on shit/unreliable hardware and obscure Linux distributions.

guess we found the brainlet

its an excuse from lintards to avoid fixing or improving what linux misses

Attached: cat_whats_up_everyone.jpg (800x534, 39K)

i wouldn't say linux is difficult to use but rather the fact that you have to relearn a couple things and the migration to some apps for document writing, but a lot of linux distros don't cater to brainlets, and even those that do will seem horrybly hard to the right brainlet

If Linux is "too hard" for you, you should probably give up computers because that Wangdows shit you're playing with is probably loaded with viruses and mining Pajeet-coins.

The companies that fund it are in the server market so they don't care about this.
So I think it's a combination of:
lack of interest from those that have a say
autistic communities (with a few exceptions)
freetard ideology (drivers are evil etc.)

Haiku actually solves most of those hard UI problems pretty well in userspace but the kernel is a mess compared to Linux or BSD.

f you can't into command line it takes a while to get used to it but it's not specially difficult. most GUIs are trash though

Ubuntu is honestly a lot more user friendly than windows these days. It literally just werks, and any issue you could possibly run into / anything you don't know how to do has already been documented with a solution that comes up if you Google it.
>protip: there is no reason to switch from ubuntu or one of its derivatives to an obscure meme distro. use ubuntu and you'll be fine

there is nothing difficult about linux at all. If you use it for dumb normie shit it's exactly the same, you click on pictures and the big bloated gui programs open.

That's true for people who can conceptualize what it is they're trying to do and look up what they're missing on a search engine. Sadly that's only like 5% of the population.

No.
The programs all need to use the same library version and updating one will mess your whole system.
Also there are problems with drivers.
Also lots of hardware is not supported, or has half assed support
Also, something not in the repository of the distro you use is usually quite hard to get to work.

Linux couldn't be easier to use. It pretty much just runs quietly in the background unoticed, like a good kernel should. Not much user interaction is required at all under normal circumstances.

based moot's cat poster

Neither
It's a design choice revolving around tinkering, and having the most flexible and customization experience.
The focus is not user experience, it's whatever you want and whatever the devs that maintain the stuff you use decided.
Of course you can just program yourself what you want to change.
If you want an user friendly os, use Windows, or a distrib focused around user experience. If you want the worst of both worlds, use MacOS.

Attached: cat10.png (960x718, 1.09M)

If all you do is browse the internet and watch movies on your computer, you don't need windows anymore

If you are doing anything like playing videogames, using excel, using email, writing any kind of document, you're using windows.

If you arting you might be using a mac instead

anyways the point is the only people who should be using linux right now are old boomers, mac/windows does everything else better

Linux is a kernel.

You might say "well you know what I mean" to which I'd say no, I don't. When you refer to the difficulty of using "Linux," you really mean the difficulty of using the Linux-based OS. This stems from the misconception that there is a definitive Linux-based OS.

The reason many Linux-based OSes are harder to use than Windows and Mac isn't bad design, but lack of design. They aren't *worse* designed than Windows and Mac, they're just *less* designed.

This in turn is a direct result of the fact that Linux is just a kernel and there's no definitive Linux OS. So it's not really a fair comparison because the Linux family of OSes, particularly the GNU/Linux family, don't work on the same versioning logic as Windows and Mac.

Windows and Mac each have one dimension of versioning: the number goes up, and the amount of layered design goes up in parallel. But Linux has two dimensions of versioning: distros are slowly updated over time, yes, but at the same time, they spawn new distros with new design philosophies and often strictly more layers of design. Really, among Linux OSes, distro ancestry is a more comparable to Windows and Mac versions than versioning within any given distro is.

Consider, for example, Windows 10 and Ubuntu, versus Windows 3.1 and Debian, versus MS-DOS and GNU+Linux. Debian, like most distros, is a fork of the common practice of pairing the GNU coreutils with the Linux kernel, and Ubuntu is a fork of Debian; accordingly, Debian is easier to use than pure GNU+Linux, and Ubuntu is easier to use than Debian. Windows 10 is a distant version upgrade from Windows 3.1, which is an upgrade from MS-DOS; accordingly, Windows 3.1 is easier to use than MS-DOS, and Windows 10 is easier to use than Windows 3.1. So if you're comparing, say, Debian to Windows 10, then yes, of course it's harder to use, because Windows 10 is the most up-to-date version of Windows, but Debian is not one of the most descended distros of GNU/Linux.

How is it any more difficult? It's different, but functions almost identically to the shit alternatives.

Linux is a kernel. It's used in systems like GNU and Android.

all of that is bullshit. You've never used linux before in your life.

>If you are doing anything like playing videogames, using excel, using email, writing any kind of document, you're using windows.
Excel is useless if you know how to use a computer. If you use microsoft word for documents when you could be use LaTeX or something you're retarded. The email thing was so moronic I don't even know what you're trying to say.

Neither, it's just niggerfaggots niggerfaggotting

Linux is just a kernel (kinda like NT) and nothing more.
The Operating System is called GNU. GNU is easy to use.
I use GNU with KDE, but I really like GNOME a lot as well.

If you do computer related things on your computer it's pretty easy to get to know, if you're system is a facebook/porn machine that's occasionally used for taxes and documents you don't have a hope in hell.

FPBP

>Linux
>out of the box

Attached: interject-for-a-moment.png (840x150, 96K)