foo

I guess it depends on your use case. I haven't owned a Windows PC since 2016. Linux all the way for me. The games I play run on it, the applications I need run on it, and it works well for me without tinkering getting in the way. I can even use it for work these days and I have far less VPN flakiness than both Windows and Mac colleagues.

For my use case the year of the Linux desktop is here, and has been for a while.

I didn't say they wouldn't know what it meant, I said they would be unlikely to know how it will affect them in their daily usage.

Most Windows users are accustomed to installing and updating their own applications, and letting the OS deal with its own updates and patches. They probably don't think much about all the dependencies and what version they're on because the installers deal with it.

When deciding whether to use a Linux LTS they may think it sounds like a good idea, with no appreciation for what happens when a package gets out of date, and their package manager won't update it, and they don't know why. They go down the rabbit hole of adding PPAs etc, which solves it in the short term maybe. Then it only gets worse from there, because they didn't understand that using an LTS means you have chosen to accept some packages being out of date for a while, until the next LTS is released.

Maybe they're the kind of person that is happy with that, or maybe they're not. But if you try to explain to the average Windows user about package repositories, Flatpaks, Snaps, LTS, rolling releases etc, you can pretty much guarantee they'll never try it because it sounds too damn hard.

Which brings me back to my original point... Us Linux users argue amongst ourselves too much about this stuff to attract Windows users, no matter what Microsoft does with their data.

The type of user who needs to ask where to start with Linux probably doesn't know how the difference between LTS and non-LTS will affect them in their daily life, yet. By the time you've finished explaining it to them, they've already decided that maybe Windows isn't so bad after all. Hence, my original point.

I agree. If people are drawn to Linux because they like the idea of it and accept they have a learning curve, that's great! But, moving to Linux through hatred or frustration with Windows will likely lead to even more frustration when Linux doesn't work the way they expected.

I intentionally didn't include it in my post because I didn't want the wave of differing opinions to distract from my point.

Personally, on balance, I would suggest Mint (Cinammon) for a new user, especially if it's an Internet stranger. Of course, I expect many, many replies disagreeing or explaining why I'm wrong and should pick ... something else.

There are loads of distros that are, or claim to be, friendly to new users. As with everything, all have advantages and disadvantages. My kids use Bazzite on their laptops because I can support them and deal with anything unexpected. I wouldn't recommend it to a random person because the installation isn't as friendly as others, and it's not as prevalent, so there is less support via search engines. The forums are quite active, and the community is friendly, but many folk would rather look for an existing answer than ask anything new. Then of course there's Ubuntu (with Snap et al), Pop!_OS, Elementary, Deepin etc etc. We could probably discuss the merits and detractors of each forever, just like currently happens in so many threads on Lemmy, Reddit and others.

So, why would I suggest Mint? Simply because it's not a wrong answer. It's easy to get, easy to install, has a great and welcoming community, and serves as a great place to introduce users to the ecosystem. After using it for a while, they can make their own, more informed choice of their next distro. There are plenty of other not wrong distros to choose from, but Mint is the one I would suggest.

They are still conceptually different operating systems. There are users who are unable to upgrade because their hardware is deemed incompatible, and when Windows 10 support ends they will be left without updates. Microsoft no doubt have reasons for this, probably some good and some bad, but ultimately this is not the same as the "Windows as a service" that was sold to customers when they paid for the licence.

Here are three sources reporting that Microsoft employee Jerry Nixon announced it at Microsoft's Ignite conference in 2015. They announced the transition to "Windows as a service" model, and it is also reported that Satya Nadella described this as a "new era" for computing.

https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/7/8568473/windows-10-last-version-of-windows

https://www.windowscentral.com/windows-10-may-be-last-version-windows-microsoft-rethinks-operating-system

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57443598

I don't have a link to a Microsoft source, or the original video/audio, but the sources are reputable enough that I'm sticking with my original statement.

Exactly. Us Linux users, as a collective, tend to shoot ourselves in the foot here because we can't decide on the "best" distro for beginners. If we all just said one thing, with confidence and without arguments, and without saying "it depends...", more would probably make the switch.

No major outlets that the average user would frequent are likely to sell laptops with any Linux distro pre installed. Many non-technical users wouldn't even reinstall Windows by themselves, let alone Linux.

Any of the usual starter distros would be a good choice because once they are in the ecosystem they can find their own path. When a non technical person asks how to get Linux, there is no worse answer than a barrage of information followed by more questions. Just pick one, say it confidently, and assist them to make it happen.

I recall them saying Windows 10 would be a rolling release and it would be the last one you ever had to buy. Could be wrong though. I don't pay much attention because I haven't used it since Windows 7. I don't have a link to back this up, just my hazy memory.

Again, I agree. Rather than blindly reducing energy usage and/or reducing plastic pollution we should be looking towards any solution that works towards holistic sustainable living across the planet.

The only statement that I would debate is: "Glass may have less pollution in the product, but more pollution in the distribution."

The pollution in the distribution is currently carbon based output from fossil fuels, but it doesn't have to be. Also, the glass can be efficiently re-used in some cases. In the UK we used to have milk distributed in glass bottles, delivered by people on electric "milk floats", who collected the empties as they delivered the full ones every day. The bottles didn't get melted down, just washed and refilled. It seems possible to me that we could get that process to almost zero carbon whilst also using zero plastic.

That's one example, but a single holistic solution to both carbon output and low waste is probably not possible. To achieve the global sustainability that we all want will take different and innovative solutions in each use case.

I guess the OP's meme makes sense in some cases and not others, depending on perspective.

I agree with all of your points, but the original picture was showing plastic pollution and you went on to compare it with carbon emissions. So when you use a phrase like "total footprint" it's difficult to interpret that any other way than we must make one problem worse to solve the other.

I don't see why we can't have solutions that are low/zero carbon AND don't result in plastic being dumped in the ocean.

Richard? Is that you?