This website is great, but the first turnoff a normal user will hit is that they don't know what "Linux distribution" means, and even if they do, it doesn't recommend one.
Even if it said go install Ubuntu or something... Very few people think of a kernel and OS as separate things. Hardware and software separation is already sketchy enough. Instead of people interjecting for a moment, can there just be a penguin-branded "Linux" OS already?
kattagarian · 1h ago
No?
Nobody in their right mind would claim that they are building the official Linux OS without turning the whole community against them.
And it's not as if the average user need to use linux. If developers move from windows 10 to linux, the impact would be huge.
frollogaston · 51m ago
This website seems directed at average users. There aren't a whole lot of devs, but even then, many devs want things to just work cause time is money.
Nobody is upset that there's an official Linux kernel. Of course it takes Linus Torvalds to declare it, and he's understandably not interested in designating an official OS, but this is the consequence.
DiabloD3 · 32m ago
I wouldn't recommend Ubuntu, though.
One of the biggest faults of Linux is we don't have an easy, user friendly, idiot proof distro for normies, but Ubuntu is just broken corporate slop.
When I was wearing the various "save users from themselves" hats in my previous life, Ubuntu users were 100% the bane of my existence... since they were all server customers, the ones that took my advice and let me help them switch over to Debian suddenly stopped being frequent footgun fliers, no matter what their original issue was.
Ubuntu, to me, is simply Debian that has been aggressively turned into enterprise slop.
frollogaston · 30m ago
Honestly I like Debian more than Ubuntu too, but the problem is that just as many people might say Debian sucks and you need to use LinuxMint or something. Even more confusing and frustrating is the "it depends on your use case" thing, as if 99.99% of PC users aren't all trying to do the same basic things (server is different, but even then, 90%?).
There has to be some acceptable default that doesn't change too much, even if it's not the best thing ever. Ubuntu changed DEs twice even though the original was fine. Windows UI is intentionally bad at this point, but at least it's stable.
holowoodman · 9m ago
> Windows UI is intentionally bad at this point, but at least it's stable.
Windows 2000 to XP to Vista to 7 were big breaks in UI. 7 to 10 was a break. 10 to 11 was a break. When I now click the lower left corner, weather opens. When I'm pressing the Windows key, no applications menu to be seen, just some web search slop.
The only thing that's constant with windows are the lying percentages, where 99% and 100% take as long as 0-98%...
frollogaston · 5m ago
They're not very different. Last time I used Windows often was 2000, and I was able to pick up and use any of the later ones. Random IT departments publishing screenshots don't need to go change everything between Windows versions.
Unless I'm misremembering, Windows key still opens the start menu with your apps. It's just that they added tons of adware and crap next to it.
pentagrama · 4h ago
This is great, but one UX issue I’ve always seen when trying to get regular Windows users to switch to Linux is the whole USB flash drive process and needing external tools like Rufus.
Let’s be honest, I don’t think most people would actually go through with that.
One idea to fix this and get more people to switch would be for Ubuntu to offer a Windows app that handles everything. It could download the ISO in the background, format the flash drive, install Ubuntu in dual boot with Windows by default, and clearly explain each step so users know how to start using Ubuntu or go back to Windows.
jitl · 4h ago
Idk why we need separate media anyways. Just resize the existing partition and create a new Linux recovery partition in place, reboot from that to install m. Or just run the whole installer in a VM on windows and then reboot to a completely working Linux system.
EDIT: Beyond skill, just getting the external media is a substantial friction. I haven't used a thumb drive besides for Linux install media in 15 years; I'm good at computers but just finding / buying one of those things is its own roadblock.
This sort of thing used to be more common. My first exposure to Linux was before CD-Rs were ubiquitous so there was often no possibility of using external media if you downloaded Linux. Partitioning the drive and installing there was typical.
jitl · 2h ago
It's the same model that both Apple and Microsoft use for their OS updates, especially when upgrading from "dark ages" version to the latest version. I just think that most Linux distro providers either don't have the resources or the passion for Windows programming to make & maintain the windows .exe part of the pathway. Wubi is neat, but living out of a file on an existing partition doesn't feel like a pathway to full-time Linux. But if it already exists and is maintained, why hasn't it become the standard approach for all distros?
dale_huevo · 1h ago
It's even more damning when you realize the Windows stage 1 installation process is essentially unchanged since Vista. The Linux people had nearly 20 years to straighten this out.
Installing Ubuntu bricked a Samsung laptop I had some years back. Never again.
invalidptr · 3h ago
I never understood why it's so complicated. On Linux, you can make a liveusb as easily as `cat liveusb.iso > /dev/sdX`. I imagine there is a powershell equivalent. There is a risk of writing to the wrong drive, so some kind of utility is needed. But the actual write is trivial. Why not make a win32 executable with the iso embedded so users only need to download one thing and then run it to write the USB media?
badsectoracula · 3h ago
IIRC Rufus can actually download the necessary ISOs so it isn't THAT complicated.
On the other hand, if someone finds that part too complicated to follow perhaps they may not be able to install Linux - or Windows for that matter - by themselves and come across other issues down the line. Ultimately replacing your OS with another one does require some minimum level of technical knowledge that you either need to have or be fine with learning during the process.
throwaway2087 · 1h ago
Windows PowerShell does not have a direct, native equivalent to this specific operation.
You have to use some combination of Clear-Disk,New-Partition,Format-Volume,Mount-DiskImage, and xcopy to do that
cosmic_cheese · 1h ago
I think it could also be worthwhile to figure out ways to:
- Avoid requiring the user to figure out how to get into BIOS/EFI and change boot order. Windows has APIs for manipulating EFI things, may be worth looking into that.
- Replace GRUB with something more modern like rEFInd or Clover with a nice looking theme.
For the latter point, while GRUB is technically functional, it looks scary and arcane to new users and has little resiliency to things like Windows updates mucking with boot entries. It makes for a bad first impression (“why is my computer showing hacker screens suddenly”) and when it breaks your average user doesn’t have a prayer of fixing it. Something that looks more modern and self-heals would be a big improvement.
heavyset_go · 2h ago
> One idea to fix this and get more people to switch would be for Ubuntu to offer a Windows app that handles everything. It could download the ISO in the background, format the flash drive, install Ubuntu in dual boot with Windows by default, and clearly explain each step so users know how to start using Ubuntu or go back to Windows.
I am almost certain something like this existed 15-20 years ago from Canonical.
While so, you have to download a program from somewhere. If I gave this to my mother she would just totally click the wrong link, infect her windows machine and give up.
For the tech, sure but for common people not so.
Why cannot Ubuntu just offer a download media creation tool like Windows does. Surely it's not that hard to couple dd with a batch gui.
looks like it’s not just for fedora either. though that is still a little more complicated than an all in one ubuntu/mint/whatever installer. maybe someone should fork it and/or add that to this.
tmtvl · 3h ago
Once when I was at FOSDEM I was checking out the OpenSUSE stand and one of the people at the stand gave me an OpenSUSE Leap DVD. Was pretty neat, though nowadays unfortunately many computers no longer have a DVD drive.
mindslight · 3h ago
Regular Windows users are also not going to reinstall Windows. I'd say this page does the right thing putting the "Find someone to help you" as the first option. Most people want something that just works, and it's a great value proposition to say "I'll take your old computer and turn it into a new device that works better".
The biggest sticking point is the fear of losing what they do have, but we're at the point where even their previous generation computer could be made to run Linux.
jitl · 2h ago
Re-installing Windows is trivial these days. You just click the item in the Start menu, it does some work, then reboots to the existing recover partition to finish up, restores your account, and you drop back to windows desktop after logging in again. If you have OneDrive enabled, you still see all your files.
mindslight · 2h ago
Does that actually completely blow away and reformat the filesystem? Meaning if you only have local files, they're then gone? From clicking an item on the Start menu?
I guess I'm not surprised with how frequently "reinstall Windows" is offered as a solution, that there is now some lighter version of that. But really I was talking about obtaining/creating installation media and reinstalling from scratch.
holowoodman · 6m ago
No, it doesn't really blow away anything. Just some copying around and over. Preserving all the malware, viruses, rootkits and stuff.
Except of course, licenses and copy protection. That stuff is gone and you have to buy it all again, since the install-id is regenerated.
artemonster · 4h ago
Take a look at a default emacs and how long it has been this way and you can quickly generate 200 plausible theories why everything sucks do much around this ecosystem. Tried 5 times going to u ubuntu in last 15 years. Everytime switched back because it sucked. Spending godless amounts of times googling obsucure problems that apprear out of thin air. No thanks. And with wsl2 I never have to look back
skeledrew · 1h ago
I had a couple failed starts moving to Ubuntu as well, years ago. Then I came across Zorin OS and that turned out to be a great bridge, followed by Kubuntu which I use to this day.
fr4nkr · 3h ago
...what does Emacs have to do with any of this? And how does running Linux in a Hyper-V virtual machine magically make it better?
artemonster · 2h ago
I thought it was a rather clear and obvious analogy how opinionated nerds hinder mass adoption of good FOSS products because user experience is dogshit.
„Running Linux in VM“ as you have put it, is miles better because it works all the time with 0 friction, driver issues, random freezes, reboots, etc.
fr4nkr · 1h ago
I understand the analogy, it's just ridiculous. You are conflating entirely unrelated things based on your personal feelings about them with no regard to historical or technical context.
Hardware support issues are certainly understandable, but blaming "opinionated nerds" for them is asinine. It cannot be understated how difficult it is to deal with certain OEMs.
akikoo · 2h ago
Here's one easy way to create the Windows USB stick installer in Linux:
This is awesome. I'd be interested in helping if I could find some extra time.
At the same time, we still have a major problem at work if Microsoft goes through with this. I work in a research lab with 10s of 1000s of dollars worth of Windows 10 workstations that cannot be upgraded. We use Windows remote desktop and plenty of other software that is Windows only. The hardware is still pretty new and capable. With NIH cuts the last thing we need now is to have to spend money and lots of time to replace all that for no good reason.
p_ing · 4h ago
This isn't an "if". And this shouldn't be shocking to anyone as Microsoft has EOL'ed all of it's previous OSes with a deadline.
3. the successor did not support hardware in use at the time
?
I'm sure it won't stop them, as you say, but really Microsoft, as someone who used to be a (relatively rare at the time) defender of yours, get fucked. The Raymond Chen camp is truly dead (https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost...)
p_ing · 56m ago
1. When has Microsoft cared (or have PCs been so abundant)?
2. ... I mean, that's every version of Windows. XP? Vista. Vista? 7, etc. The last time you had two choices of Windows was in the '90s.
3. It does support hardware in use 'at the time'. I upgraded from 10 to 11 on existing hardware.
If you mean older hardware, 98 and NT4 were the last to support the 486, yet 486s were still in use by the time of release of Me/2000 (I sadly had to interact with said 486s in a school lab). XP -> Vista made the jump from a Pentium 233Mhz minimum to 800Mhz minimum, /and/ caused many issues due to the introduction of WDDM causing a lot of graphics hardware to become incompatible.
This is nothing new. Those pulling the shocked pikachu face perhaps just haven't been around the Windows block enough to realize... this is nothing new.
wat10000 · 3h ago
That article is an interesting time capsule.
Microsoft (well, the Windows part) is looking more and more like the Apple and Sun in that article. It’s the #2 or #3 user-facing OS these days. The fancy new programming environment happened and most stuff moved there, but it’s JavaScript and the browser rather than C# and .NET. Running old software is becoming a niche and getting more so by the day.
nwellinghoff · 2h ago
You could always switch to the ltsc line. Been using ltsc iot and its pretty nice
Hilift · 3h ago
> I work in a research lab with 10s of 1000s of dollars worth of Windows 10 workstations that cannot be upgraded.
It's the same situation as last time with Windows 7. You can get three years of extended support for the monthly cumulative update, which I assume is being done given it is fairly inexpensive. The US government gets favorable pricing from Microsoft.
The consumer price for Windows 10 ESU is $30/$60/$90 for the first/second/third year.
cosmicgadget · 2h ago
Hopefully this will be popular enough that Steam and Mozilla and others won't drop Win10 support for several more years.
bitbiter · 1h ago
Steam dropped support for Windows XP and Windows Vista at the same time, about 5 years after Microsoft ended support for Windows XP and 2 years after support ended for Windows Vista
em-bee · 3h ago
compared to buying a new machine that's actually not that bad. i am not a windows user but spending $180 to extend the life of a fairly new machine by another three years may just be worth it.
ponector · 48m ago
If person cannot buy a new machine I bet they will continue use old one without bothering of getting paid updates.
Some companies may be buying prolongation for specific equipment which run win10.
Computers are cheap!
password4321 · 1h ago
In case you are not aware, right now the Windows 11 upgrade can be forced to ignore the hardware requirements. At this time this does allow unsupported machines to receive Windows 11 updates, though this is not really a viable option for commercial users needing long-term official support.
Windows 10 ending in October blows my mind in contrast to the free as in beer near GUI-less Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2019 receiving extended support (security updates) until 2029. I'll probably assemble a patched-up/slipstreamed installer for recycling older equipment!
karmakurtisaani · 1h ago
You'd think the sysadmins would think of upgrading the operating systems when setting the system up, no?
amflare · 1h ago
In fairness, Windows 10 was marketed as the Last OS. I could see how someone would take this into account when choosing an OS. Its not their fault the rug was pulled out from under them.
p_ing · 53m ago
Microsoft never made the Windows 10 "last OS" statement, nor endorse Jerry Nixon, a developer evangelist, who said it.
karmakurtisaani · 1h ago
Ah ok, I wasn't aware of that. What a strange promise to make..
lozf · 3h ago
You might consider Windows 10 LTSC IoT edition, it's supported until 2031 iirc.
bearjaws · 5h ago
I just wish anti-cheat would work on Linux, Windows has become an absolute mess, the search is barely usable now, everything has ads and product placement.
prophesi · 3h ago
It's not terrible these days, especially with the advent of the Steam Deck. If you're not playing flavor-of-the-month live service games, then I've found that I rarely run into games where DRM/anti-cheat is the issue. A quick glance at protondb will let you know if a game runs fine on linux or not.
everdrive · 4h ago
Kernel-level anti-cheat is quite bad, and I just wish it would be abandoned altogether rather than extended to Linux. This wasn't a problem when we had private servers rather than random matchmaking.
ThatPlayer · 1h ago
Modern private servers have this problem too. CS2 private servers like Face-IT and Esea have additional anti cheat. Even Grand Theft Auto V's private servers FiveM has their own custom anti cheat before Rockstar added one
Anticheats like BattleEye started as private servers add-ons like this too, not official support, but admins choose to install them. I even remember Brood War's private ICCUP servers had their anti-hack as they called it.
bee_rider · 3h ago
If there’s really a market for linux distros that have been pre-infected by rootkits, it seems one of the major game studios could provide it.
Of course the well known gaming company that releases a distro is Valve. But, rootkits don’t seem like they fit their particular ethos (they are well known for their less annoying DRM scheme, right?). TBH, it seems like a rare opportunity to break the hold they have on the “game store” concept.
surajrmal · 44m ago
Rootkit implies it's trying to hide its presence. DRM software does no such thing. It simply wants to assert greater control over the hardware and restrict the user from executing some action in some way in exchange for access to something you wouldn't be able to have due to lack of trust. In the case of anticheat, many do not find its existence malicious or anti user.
eloisant · 4h ago
Anti-cheat themselves are not the problem, developers who decide not to block Windows even when the anti-cheat would work is.
Fortnite uses EAC which does work on Linux, only they decide to block it.
coldpie · 13m ago
EAC's Linux implementation is not as robust as the Windows implementation. For a high-profile game like Fortnite, I can understand not wanting to downgrade their anti-cheat protections.
runjake · 4h ago
Some anticheats work on Linux, including Easy Anticheat. Which ones are you still having problems with?
frollogaston · 1h ago
The only way to leave Windows is to not care about video games. Despite Wine etc, this is basically how it goes. But it's a win-win, you get back your time and focus.
zeta0134 · 4h ago
There is no reason Linux could not support sensible userland anti-cheat protections. What Linux wrappers mostly refuse to actually support is rootkits and exploits. Linux should not support rootkits and exploits, and frankly neither should Windows, but I suppose Microsoft doesn't care all that much about security in a games context.
Linux's inability to run specific anti-cheat solutions is a vendor support issue on the anti-cheat maker's part, because they don't care about your security, and they've managed to convince game developers that this practice is acceptable. It's not. Vote with your wallet.
coldpie · 16m ago
If you can come up with a better solution, you'll have an entire industry's worth of money coming your way. No one likes the kernel-mode anticheat stuff, but no one's come up with a better solution either. Cheaters suck.
dist-epoch · 2h ago
Rootkit is defined by intent, not by capabilities.
If a user agrees to a kernel level anti-cheat, it's not a rootkit.
omnimus · 5h ago
Which in particular? Many online games run fine.
imhoguy · 4h ago
Roblox doesn't work under Linux. There are some workarounds with Wine but they stop working pretty quickly.
Aeolun · 3h ago
Sober has more or less consistently worked for me. Except for a short time during some special Roblox event.
evanextreme · 4h ago
areweanticheatyet.com has a good list
ok123456 · 4h ago
Anticheat is always a rootkit by another name. Don't buy software that has rootkits or support it. They are antithetical to secure computing.
dist-epoch · 2h ago
What do you think about SecureBoot? Is it anti-user DRM?
mystified5016 · 4h ago
I don't. If Windows suddenly dumps market share, game developers might actually be forced to find a way to solve this problem without installing actual malware into your kernel
balanc · 3h ago
If I install it on purpose to guarantee to other players that I am not cheating then it is not malware.
charcircuit · 5h ago
Linux distros could work to create an API for anticheat to use that could verify their program's integrity, then work to have various anticheat to integrate it. This would avoid the issue of Linux not having a stable ABI for kernel drivers. For example Vanguard anticheat doesn't need to be a kernel driver since macos has good enough protection. If Linux could become competitive on security they wouldn't need kernel mode anticheat either.
I'm not holding my breath for this to happen though.
treyd · 4h ago
It's not an issue of getting the act together on "security". Fairly consistently Linux desktop OSes have a better security story than Windows desktops due to better software supply chain integrity.
The issue is that Windows is designed to be able to protect the will of proprietary software publishers against the will of users that want to assert control over the software running on their computer. It's very similar to the story with DRM.
Linux desktop OSes will never put in place the measures to make a Vanguard-like system work, because it's just unethical for a bunch of reasons, the most basic of which being that it's a violation of freedoms 0 and 1.
charcircuit · 4h ago
>Linux desktop OSes have a better security story than Windows desktops due to better software supply chain integrity.
This isn't true. And supply chain wise just look at the xz backdoor. A random person was able to compromise the supply chain of many Linux distros. Security also is not just supply chain integrity.
>Windows is designed to be able to protect the will of proprietary software publishers against the will of users
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Just because Micrsoft cares about developers, it doesn't mean they don't care about users.
>that it's a violation of freedoms 0 and 1
It's not. Freedom 0 and 1 does not give you the freedom to cheat against other players without being banned. You can be free to modify the game client, but you aren't entitled to play with others using it.
treyd · 3h ago
> A random person was able to compromise the supply chain of many Linux distros.
The xz backdoor was successfully caught before it landed in mainstream release branches, because it's free software.
But broadening the scope a bit, the norms of using package managers as opposed to the norm on Windows of "download this .exe" is a much stronger security posture overall.
I am aware the Windows Store exists, it's not widely used enough to make exes a marginal distribution pathway. I am aware curl | bash exists, it's more common than it should be, but even in those cases the source is visible and auditable, and that's very uncommon for non-technical users to ever do (unlike downloading random exes).
> Freedom 0 and 1 does not give you the freedom to cheat against other players without being banned.
That's a strawman, I never claimed you should have the right to cheat against other players.
> You can be free to modify the game client, but you aren't entitled to play with others using it.
And that's the issue, Windows has functionality to impede your ability to run the software as you see fit and modify it to your needs. Perhaps you want to run your own server, with different moderation policies.
charcircuit · 3h ago
>The xz backdoor was successfully caught before it landed in mainstream release branches
What? It literally got included with several distros. It wasn't caught before it shipped to end users. Just because it got caught before slower to update distros got it, that doesn't mean it is okay. It reveals how low the barrier is for an anonymous person to get code into the OS.
>I never claimed you should have the right to cheat against other players.
Attestation doesn't take away your ability to modify and run software which means that you still have freedom 0 and 1. It just means that you can not prove to a remote server that you bare running unmodified software. To me you were implying that the server being able to kick people who modified the client to cheat was violating their freedom.
>Perhaps you want to run your own server, with different moderation policies.
Nothing would stop you from running your own server like that.
TheBicPen · 3h ago
> You can be free to modify the game client, but you aren't entitled to play with others using it.
For a multiplayer game, I'd argue that playing with others (even if you're restricted to private servers, not that most games support that anymore..) is running the software. Being able to use a piece of software for its intended purpose is more relevant than a literal reading "you are allowed to exec the binary and nothing more"
p_ing · 4h ago
Apple doesn't allow kext without the end user jumping through hoops, hence no kext. Riot doesn't really have much of a choice in what direction they take.
But with Linux being open, they certainly would produce a loadable module if there was enough install base to justify it.
charcircuit · 4h ago
>Riot doesn't really have much of a choice
True, but the main point of a kernel mode anticheat is the ability to verify that the OS and game isn't being tampered with. If the OS has that capability already built in, then the needed for a kernel mode anticheat diminishes.
>they certainly would produce a loadable module if there was enough install base to justify it
It's not realistic for there to be such an install base to support such complexity compared to having them implement a simple API into their game and server.
zamadatix · 4h ago
The only value kernel mode anticheat manages to bring on Windows is that it puts up a significant work barrier to both modifying the kernel and doing so in a way that doesn't trigger the kernel mode anti-cheat detection. With a kernel made to be easily customized by end users and no kernel mode anti-cheat protection trying to detect such modifications then any verification the kernel could provide would be meaningless.
It's not actually the message from the kernel that provides the value, it's the work needed to fake such a message.
frollogaston · 1h ago
I don't see how they could do this without violating the principle of user choice. Client-side anticheat is inherently security through obscurity.
charcircuit · 4m ago
>violating the principle of user choice
What do you exactly mean by this as right now no users can use Linux and play the game. Allowing more Linux operating systems to be able to play the game is providing users more choice than before.
>Client-side anticheat is inherently security through obscurity
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with security through obscurity. It's just that for some problems the return on investment (security gained for the resources needed) is not worth it. For anticheat the obscurity can slow down cheat developers and raise the barrier to entry for developing cheats. Cheaters just have to make one mistake to get caught.
I only wish the process/instructions were a little more friendly for normies.
bxparks · 4h ago
It's great in theory.
In practice, it may not work properly even on their "supported" models. For example, sound does not work on my Dell E7270. Secondly, you must be willing use the Chrome browser. I will not because Chrome no longer has the option to always show the scrollbars. I am convinced that modern UX/UI designers hate their users.
This is the first post to get substantial conversation, though. The impression I get is that on-topic reposts are fine until such time as they get traction - provided that they a. aren’t self-promotion and b. are made by different users.
timetraveller26 · 1h ago
Funny enough I've been on Linux +10 years, and I've seen the same arguments, it's ugly, games don't run, etc.
There's been ton of progress, thankfully people keep using linux besides the very vocal frustrated "failed" migrations.
eviks · 48m ago
> But what if you could make your current one fast and secure again?
At a fraction of time spent following this guide you can extend win 10 by a few more years by switching to ltsc or go win11 bypassing all software restrictions
sgt · 2h ago
I don't fully understand. Is Windows 10 completely dead in the water due to lack of security updates? You can just keep using an old Windows 10 PC and take your chances. The browser will be a barrier, and the built in firewall and anti malware as well. Not perfect, but a solution.
bee_rider · 1h ago
It’s actually really wild that OS vendors apparently sell software that is so defective that it is assumed unsafe without ongoing updates, and then use the threat of not providing updates to spur adoption of their subsequent products.
In a more reasonable world they’d owe their customers a recall.
dsp_person · 43m ago
would you be happy running a few years old linux kernel missing security patches?
ssl-3 · 17m ago
Good point.
As a response to the kernel's various SNAFUs, I've gone ahead and refunded to myself all of the money I've spent on Linux kernels over the past several decades -- and updated my install to the new version for free.
kemotep · 1h ago
It only took about 7 years between XP’s EOL and EternalBlue based attacks like Wannacry and NotPetya.
A well configured firewall between your computer and the internet, uBlock Origin in the browser, and not downloading untrusted files off the internet can do a long way to help. Not stopping everything but at least shielding you from the worst.
I think the bigger issue is like on iPhones and Androids. Your software and apps stop supporting your OS long before the hardware or OS fails you.
frollogaston · 1h ago
Didn't WannaCry affect newer Windows versions equally? And they even backported the patch to XP.
kemotep · 50m ago
It affected anything using SMBv1 and improperly configured SMBv2. SMBv3 requires all mitigations in place
Which from what I understand is that even Windows 11 still has support for SMBv1.
But my point was that your standard “up to date” XP install in 2016 was highly vulnerable and could effectively be nuked by such an attack. It took nearly 7 years after support ended for that to happen. So you could theoretically get another 7 years out of Windows 10 before a similar situation happens where a global cyberattack negatively impacts you with no way to protect yourself because your OS doesn’t support a configuration that would prevent you from being a victim.
frollogaston · 44m ago
I see. But even after the 7 years, XP users were still able to protect themselves from WannaCry once the patch was created. Or they could've disabled SMB even before that, good idea anyway.
Btw I do have a spare PC, it only got Win10 because the GPU didn't support 7, and it's not getting 11 even though it supports it. Microsoft's job to keep that secure.
kemotep · 15m ago
Well I would hardly say that protections against being obliterated in a global ransomware attack that comes out after the ransomware attack occurs helps the victims that much but yes it is possible if there is another massive cyber attack Microsoft could release a fix for 10 years after support has ended.
It is definitely possible to heavily lockdown a Windows computer to prevent 99% of attacks and if you don’t need WAN access especially that becomes significantly easier.
It is far more likely browsers will drop support for 10 in a few years and that will be what stops the average user from being able to continue to use their Windows 10 computer.
mrweasel · 5h ago
One thing I've noticed is that the price of used hardware has gone up in my area. Sadly it seems like the Windows 10 only hardware is getting scrapped, rather than getting price dumped.
WorldPeas · 2h ago
everyone has a phone nowadays, I think the expectation that the e-waste cycle would continue was a misjudgement. For most normal people I know, windows 7 was their last "laptop generation"(10 at the latest) before they could have switched entirely to their phones or tablets. They also don't really bother getting rid of this gear by sale, most of the prior generation's machines were priced in the thousands and were towers so it made more sense to resell them, that generation(to my perception) was mostly thin plastic units with almost no durability. Most people I've seen hold onto them "just in case", as they wouldn't sell in their condition.
mathattack · 5h ago
Perhaps it's getting repurposed?
Think about the demand and supply curves of calculations (or computation). For most of history, they moved in tandem, with supply moving slightly faster, so computers would always do more at slightly lower costs.
Now both curves are speeding up, but demand is moving faster, so the costs of hardware are going up. And when high end servers (with GPUs) are unavailable, people hold onto the older ones longer.
npteljes · 2h ago
I don't think any amount of grassroots anything will make the year of the Linux desktop happen. What could work is what Valve does: providing a valuable device with Linux preinstalled. Microsoft's backdoor bundle won't be defeated from below.
gadders · 4h ago
"At this point you will overwrite all data on the computer, so have a back up of the files you want to keep."
Can't help thinking that should be in a bigger font. It's a shame there doesn't seem to be a away to install Linux and keep your Documents directory at least. Is that due to file systems?
[Yes, yes, backup to memory stick/external drive but I'm talking about for your average person on the street]
fuzzy2 · 3h ago
This is entirely possible in many ways. You could keep the NTFS partition, shrink it, eventually copy data off of it, …
So long as enough contiguous space is available to install the desired Linux distro.
MyOutfitIsVague · 3h ago
Linux has to install somewhere, and it needs a filesystem that supports POSIX permissions, so you need a partition formatted for it. If NTFS is taking up the entire drive and can't be shrunk, where does Linux install?
You can't do this all on the same drive, because you need a place to copy the documents directory to. You need to delete the NTFS partition to create the place to copy the files to, but by the time you've done that, the Documents are inaccessible. You could do it in memory, feasibly, if you create a RAMdisk and are lucky enough to have enough memory for all your documents, but then you're still gambling on not running out of memory during the install.
So it is possible to copy the documents on the same device, and it's possible to even automate the process, but it's not possible to do it reliably or safely, and the reliability is so low that it's not worth even offering the possibility. If somebody has a handful of gigabytes of documents, it's already a nonstarter. To be safe you'd demand the user make a backup onto another device anyway, in which case they might as well do that and then copy the files into a fresh install themselves
TheBicPen · 3h ago
I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to 1) check the size of the documents directory and the existing NTFS partition on windows and 2) if the existing partition is < (1/2 the disk size - the size of the Linux installation), give the user the option to shrink the partition and copy the relevant files over to the new /home. This is assuming the tool is going to install a dual-boot configuration anyway, at which point this isn't significantly more work. If the idea is to completely overwrite the existing installation then this would make the process significantly more complicated. But I imagine that for a tool intended for less-technical users, dual-boot installation is the way to go to give them assurance that their existing setup will continue to work.
MyOutfitIsVague · 3h ago
For a dual boot configuration, you might as well not copy anything over. You'd be better off mounting the Windows partition in the Linux install. There's not a great reason to dual-boot for non-technical users, though. The point is to end up on a system that works for them, not to have one that works for them and a derelict system that they don't know how to remove, and that can destroy their dual-boot setup if MS decides to push an update that overwrites the boot loader, leaving them unable to access the Linux install.
It's not just shrinking and copying over to the new `/home` because of the locality of the data. If your NTFS partition is taking the entirety of the disk (minus EFI and system partitions), shrinking it will then make it take up the first X% of the disk. Then you have to make the linux installation on the last (100-X)% of the disk, copy the files over, and then when you delete the NTFS partition, your Linux filesystem is on the last half of the disk with a big blank unallocated area on the beginning. BTRFS or LVM2 could help a little bit there, but that's far from ideal in any case.
Probably the best approach would be to shrink NTFS, create a new partition at the end of at least the right size, copy the files over, then wipe the NTFS partition, install Linux as the first partition (after system/EFI and such), then copy the files into the user's home, and then remove the documents partition. That's still not super reliable, though. You are at the mercy of your documents sizes, filesystem fragmentation (remember, even if your filesystem is mostly empty, you might not be able to shrink if fragmentation is in a bad place. You could defrag, but then the install time can balloon up many hours for the defrag process alone, just to shrink a filesystem that you're going to delete anyway), how big the Linux install will end up being, and many other factors. You'd have a lot of people who simply can't copy their documents over on install who will be simply SOL. I can't think of a situation where this kind of thing wouldn't be better served by just telling the user to backup their documents to a USB drive and move them back afterward, because many people are going to have to do that anyway.
charcircuit · 2h ago
One option you didn't mention was syncing everything to the cloud, and then redownloading it all.
wat10000 · 2h ago
There’s no technical reason it can’t copy all your documents to the new system, or partition your drive to allow dual-booting with your documents accessible from both OSes, and allow you to remove the Windows partition once you’re comfortable doing so. If the installers don’t have this option, they certainly should.
Jaxan · 3h ago
I tried installing Ubuntu on my surface pro 4. But the support for touch and stylus is bad. Also it didn’t properly shut down and emptied the battery that way.
It’s still a great device, it just sucks I’m stuck with windows (10).
ponector · 34m ago
To be honest, win10 also usually does not properly shuts down or goes to sleep. You need manually set up a hibernation on lid close to be sure it will not awake in your bag to become a noisy heater there.
LOL, I can just imagine someone installing Ubuntu in their Surface, then seeing that several things don't work. Then they go to this repo, which is "scary" in itself for non-technical people, and then they click on the "detailed installation guide" at https://github.com/linux-surface/linux-surface/wiki/Installa...
And that's it, they are lost and tired at that point. They will just go back to Windows.
dave333 · 1h ago
Is it possible to upgrade your hardware so that it becomes upgradable to Windows 11?
dave333 · 1h ago
Answering my own question via AI:
Yes, it is often possible to upgrade your PC hardware to make it compatible with Windows 11, but the feasibility and cost depend heavily on which specific requirements your current PC fails to meet.
Windows 11 has stricter hardware requirements than Windows 10, primarily focusing on security and modern capabilities. The key hurdles for older PCs are usually:
CPU (Processor) Compatibility:
Requirement: 1 GHz or faster with 2 or more cores on a compatible 64-bit processor. Microsoft maintains a list of approved CPUs. Generally, this means Intel 8th Gen (Coffee Lake) or newer, and AMD Ryzen 2000 series or newer.
Upgradability: This is often the trickiest and most expensive upgrade. If your CPU isn't on the list, you would likely need to replace your motherboard AND CPU (and possibly RAM, as newer motherboards often require different RAM types). This is essentially building a new core system and might not be cost-effective for an older PC.
TPM (Trusted Platform Module) 2.0:
Requirement: TPM version 2.0. This is a hardware security module that stores cryptographic keys.
Upgradability:
Enable in BIOS/UEFI: Many PCs manufactured in the last 5-7 years actually have TPM 2.0 (or fTPM/PTT, firmware-based TPM) but it might be disabled in the BIOS/UEFI settings. This is the easiest fix – just enable it.
Add a TPM Module: Some older motherboards (typically from around the Intel 6th/7th gen or similar AMD era) have a TPM header where you can purchase and install a physical TPM 2.0 module. This is a relatively inexpensive upgrade if your motherboard supports it.
Motherboard Replacement: If your motherboard doesn't have an integrated fTPM/PTT and lacks a TPM header, you would need to replace the motherboard (which usually means a new CPU and RAM too).
UEFI Firmware with Secure Boot Capability:
Requirement: Your system firmware must be UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface, a modern BIOS replacement) and Secure Boot capable.
Upgradability:
Enable in BIOS/UEFI: Similar to TPM, many modern PCs are UEFI-capable but might be running in "Legacy BIOS" or "CSM" (Compatibility Support Module) mode. You can often switch to UEFI mode in your BIOS/UEFI settings.
Enable Secure Boot: Once in UEFI mode, you can usually enable Secure Boot from within the BIOS/UEFI settings.
Motherboard Limitation: Very old PCs might only support Legacy BIOS and not UEFI at all. In this case, a motherboard replacement would be necessary.
RAM (Memory):
Requirement: 4 GB or greater.
Upgradability: This is usually the easiest and cheapest upgrade. Most desktops and many laptops allow you to add more RAM.
Storage:
Requirement: 64 GB or larger storage device.
Upgradability: Easily upgradable. You can replace a smaller HDD/SSD with a larger one.
Graphics Card:
Requirement: Compatible with DirectX 12 or later with WDDM 2.0 driver.
Upgradability: Most integrated and dedicated graphics cards from the last several years meet this. If yours doesn't, you could install a new graphics card (for desktops) or be out of luck (for laptops).
How to Check Your PC's Compatibility:
The best way to determine what specifically is holding your PC back is to use Microsoft's PC Health Check app. It will tell you exactly which requirements your system meets and which it doesn't.
Summary of Upgrade Possibilities:
Most Common & Easiest:
Enabling TPM 2.0 in BIOS/UEFI.
Enabling Secure Boot in BIOS/UEFI (after switching to UEFI mode if needed).
Adding more RAM (if less than 4GB).
Upgrading storage drive size.
More Involved & Potentially Costly:
Adding a physical TPM 2.0 module (if your motherboard has the header).
Upgrading the CPU (often requires a new motherboard and RAM too).
Replacing the motherboard (almost always requires new CPU and RAM).
Upgrading the graphics card (for desktops).
Is it worth it?
For older PCs that require a new CPU and motherboard, it often makes more sense financially to purchase a new PC that comes with Windows 11 pre-installed or is fully compatible out-of-the-box. The cost of individual component upgrades can quickly add up, and you'll end up with a system that's still fundamentally older than a brand-new one.
However, if you only need to enable TPM/Secure Boot in BIOS or add RAM, it's definitely a viable and cheap way to get on Windows 11.
cosmicgadget · 2h ago
"Just use Linux." Great solution. Except I already have a Linux boot. Still need a Windows boot.
rubyn00bie · 55m ago
To everyone saying you can’t play games on Linux. You can. You can play an amazing amount of games, even on launch day, with nothing more than a click of the install button on Steam. I smashed install for Clair Obscur last night and it works great. If you don’t play highly competitive online games like League of Legends then you’ll be fine.
Anecdata— a mate of mine plays Hell Divers 2, and thought he couldn’t play it or it wouldn’t work well. I told I had played it and it worked fine. Two days later, he’s using Linux and getting better performance than he was on Windows.
It has been five years of gaming exclusively on Linux, and I have yet to find a game I can’t play with the only exceptions (for me) being League of Legends and iRacing. But I can live without them. If you don’t play extremely competitive online games you can probably play it. My rule of thumb is, “are there IRL pro tournaments for money?” if there aren’t it’ll very likely just work.
My only tip is just use something like common. Ubuntu, Mint, PopOS, Arch, ZorinOS, Kubuntu… all will probably work with zero effort. Don’t go mucking about with weird distros, and bizarre tweaks, and you’re more than likely gonna have the most stable system you’ve ever used.
I cannot recommend Linux highly enough. Five years ago I was skeptical and unsure but tired of Windows bullshit and here I am— still loving it. I’ve fully upgraded the system recently, except for the GPU (because 5090 prices are ridiculous and I don’t want less VRAM than my 3090 has) and it even booted from my old install and just worked.
Try Linux, friends. It’s pretty freaking great these days.
aduwah · 1h ago
Can't play a lot of mainstream games on Linux is the issue
rubyn00bie · 1h ago
You’d be surprised how many games you can. It’s a pretty common misconception at this point. The only things that you can’t are some highly competitive multiplayer games like League of Legends or iRacing. I haven’t had a game not work in years, just smash the install button on steam and be done with it. Even a large amount of MMOs just work. I play SWTOR and even have StarParse (stats overlay working perfectly).
And if enough people move to Linux even those holdouts will eventually have to support it. The Steam deck has been the gateway drug to Linux for the masses, and I’m stoked for it. Moving to Linux for my desktop gaming machine was the single best decision I made 5 years ago, and I haven’t used Windows since. It’s more stable than Windows ever was, and I also don’t have an errant update break a game, the system, or cause a reboot at the worst possible time.
SirMaster · 1m ago
And those are the only types of games I play... So for me it feels like barely anything I want to play works on Linux.
xtracto · 1h ago
Can't play a lot of mainstream games in old windows computers also. Which what this website is about.
So what?
29athrowaway · 1h ago
If you are curious and work in software, you will at some point install Linux or other operating systems and have an informed opinion about what OS you like the most and use that.
If you are not driven by curiosity, most of the time the driver is either money, a vision of software as only an occupation, work life balance, etc.
Which is usually the kind of people that is not excited by software, doesn't have a passion for it and even take passion away from others.
Frenchgeek · 5h ago
I've been mainly on Linux for 20 years now (damn already?), what started as a cheap computer with second-hand parts with a more powerful windows machine mostly for games is now a powerful machine in its own rights with an outdated windows one gathering dust right beside it... It's not perfect, but I don't have to spend half an hour removing everything useless I can. (Or have Microsoft assume I have nothing better to do than watch a full presentation on how edgy their new browser is. I'm not going to forgive that one.)
isk517 · 1h ago
>>Or have Microsoft assume I have nothing better to do than watch a full presentation on how edgy their new browser is
As someone who has setting up new computers regularly dumped on them, having to click thru all of those dumb screens before being allowed to start using the browser has been the biggest contributor in my decision to ditch Windows
subjectsigma · 5h ago
Clean, clear, compelling. I’m not a huge fan of desktop Linux and I’ve posted that several times, but I can still find joy in other people’s success. This is the kind of marketing work that operating systems like Mint and Ubuntu need! Thanks for posting and/or making this.
juujian · 5h ago
With three or four major GUIs out there, that's a bit of a sweeping statement, no? What's the negative that applies to all distros?
jonfw · 5h ago
Two negatives that are actively made worse by the the fact that there are a variety of distros-
1. Nothing is googleable. People have to google how to do things like adjust the layout of external monitors, and it's significantly harder to do that on linux.
2. There are a lot of different ways to install applications, and different options are available depending on which distro or application you're targeting
anon7000 · 4h ago
1. What? It works nearly the same way as Mac or windows? Just a section in the settings app
2. Most distros have an App Store that’s easy to find these days. Works great for non-cli tools
jitl · 2h ago
Distro app stores work fine for things in the distro app store, at whatever version the distro provides.
It's like 900x easier to install random software you find about online on a Mac (there's zip containing the .app directory, done), and about 10x easier to install random software on Windows (they give you a .exe you double click, click next a few times, done). Versus Linux where you look at a list of different file types, consider the differences between a .deb, .rpm, figure out if it should come from Flathub, deal with enabling unverified Flathub packages, possibly disable a Flathub package from your distro that sucks and overrides the maintainer's package, etc. See things like https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1htu87i/it_to...
all2 · 5h ago
Probably, yes. A lot is plug and play, but not all.
Having set one parent up on Mint, I can say categorically that it is still a bit of a config nightmare.
yapyap · 4h ago
Honestly the biggest drawback of Linux for new people is IMO the massive amounts of distros, that choice alone between dozens of distros is enough friction to turn someone off the idea
xtracto · 1h ago
And then the stupid "solutions" that people propose when something doesn't work in one distro: "have you tried Y distro". And then the new people install it, their original problem solved, but THAT distro has new problems.
WorldPeas · 2h ago
this. This fracture also causes issues due to configuration differences between distros and DEs(for example with a screen capture utility I could download from apt registries, it wouldn't work on kde, only gnome, and it's hard to explain that to a parent). The current skirmishes with packaging mechanisms apt/snap/flatpak and Wayland V. X11 only make this more challenging.
globular-toast · 4h ago
Installing Linux is easy. The problem that inevitably arises is moving all of their data across. Things like their browser bookmarks and email inboxes etc. Is there a fool proof way to do this? If they knew where all their data was then they'd be half way to being able to install Linux themselves.
Balooga · 2h ago
The problem I find happening too often is that everything works on the initial install. Then an update comes along and nukes sound. Then a few weeks later a round of updates fixes sound but breaks Bluetooth. Then a few weeks later an update nukes WiFi. Ok, connect via Ethernet. Three updates later Bluetooth starts working again.
Then everything works... until you try to adjust the display brightness.
This on pre-2020 Lenovo laptops.
TheBicPen · 3h ago
With so many things being cloud-based, moving to a new device often just requires logging in. See how easy setting up new devices is on Android and iOS.
On the desktop side, the GNOME online accounts feature is pretty good at getting you most of the way there.
CactusRocket · 3h ago
That's a problem with every computer update right? Not limited to Linux.
herbst · 4h ago
You just login into chrome again
No comments yet
mystified5016 · 4h ago
All browsers I've used (chromium and Firefox based) store your profile in AppData. This directory can be dropped into a linux install at the appropriate location and you get all your history, plugins, cookies transferred. Completely seamless if you're willing to go through some simple steps.
Then again plenty of modern browsers have some type of profile syncing built in, which does all this for you.
> email inboxes
Please don't use POP3. Your inbox should live on a remote server and simply follow your account. Storing your inbox exclusively on your PC will make you very sad some day.
em-bee · 2h ago
Your inbox should live on a remote server
most cheaper/free email providers have a storage limit.
besides, i disagree conceptually. if i want to reduce the risk of my email being read or handed to someone i don't trust, then removing it from the server is a good idea. i can make my own backups.
Spivak · 5h ago
I like it, I think it's a good way to encourage people who otherwise may have not given the linux desktop a chance. I think one of the big hurdles he's going to be getting new users used to the command line. Because I know there's lots of discussion about like how everything should be done with the GUI but when you need help or get support with Linux it's most often going to take the form of a command that you can copy and paste into your terminal and will do what you want. You don't have to have guides with 50 screenshots of what settings to tweak. It's just a line or two of text.
In a way I kind of wish this was how more windows support was handled just because PowerShell is so uhh... powerful.
It might be that Linux is less capable for your use case, but people seem to be generally content with ChromeOS and I think that the standard Fedora desktop install is more capable than that so I think the market exists.
jonplackett · 4h ago
I feel shallow for admitting it, but Linux is just a bit too ugly looking for me. This website has similar lack of attention to design. I guess it’s just an open source thing. You can’t expect so much attention to detail for free.
atomicnumber3 · 4h ago
What desktop env are you using when you try linux? And what non-linux UI are you used to?
I've found Ubuntu's default, and "vanilla gnome shell" to both be pretty cohesive and "modern".
And at the same time, I've never really felt like Windows or Mac actually end up with a more cohesive UI than the various linux desktop envs. For every Qt/GTK theming mismatch, I find a Windows mismatch between apps due to Windows being 12+ generations of design languages and toolkits built on top of each other. (e.g. the 3+ distinct "current" windows control panel looks (11, then 10, then 7, then XP as you keep digging into more and more obscure settings). And apps typically "freeze" at the UI design when they're born. e.g. XP apps still look XP, and so on.
And on Mac, you have the (relatively!) small number of apps actually artfully designed for macos. And then you have all the other ones - electron, java-based, cross-platform Qt apps (which naturally look like Qt apps... just like on KDE/gnome).
There's of course various quibbles over font render, that have existed since time immemorial. I don't think any one platform really wins hands-down here, though it's my understanding that mac typically does the best (as long as none of the non-mac-native apps manage to mess it up).
I really think people just have double-standards at this point, where their "home" platform's flaws are minor, and candidates to replace it must be flawless. (I'll also admit I'm the same, though NATURALLY I think I'm right - i figure if everything is electron and mismatched anyway, I might as well have a free-as-in-freedom operating system under it. Nobody is putting ads in my start menu or advertising xbox game pass to me in my notifications.
anon7000 · 4h ago
There are dozens of OS designs available for Linux. Unlike windows or Mac, you could change most things you think are ugly. There are large parts of windows I think are ugly, for example. Gnome isn’t ugly at all, and actually performs many times better than windows (and sometimes mac). Bad performance is ugly to me.
Linux is beautiful if you have time, energy, and inclination to make it beautiful. Otherwise, like macOS and Windows, it's just some defaults picked by the Adwaita team 2 years ago when the distro cut its stable release.
I used to use Openbox and compile my own freetype with patches but these days want to spend my time on other things, so I'm just using macOS which has the best out of the box experience with the lowest TODO list when setting up a new computer.
Even if it said go install Ubuntu or something... Very few people think of a kernel and OS as separate things. Hardware and software separation is already sketchy enough. Instead of people interjecting for a moment, can there just be a penguin-branded "Linux" OS already?
Nobody in their right mind would claim that they are building the official Linux OS without turning the whole community against them.
And it's not as if the average user need to use linux. If developers move from windows 10 to linux, the impact would be huge.
Nobody is upset that there's an official Linux kernel. Of course it takes Linus Torvalds to declare it, and he's understandably not interested in designating an official OS, but this is the consequence.
One of the biggest faults of Linux is we don't have an easy, user friendly, idiot proof distro for normies, but Ubuntu is just broken corporate slop.
When I was wearing the various "save users from themselves" hats in my previous life, Ubuntu users were 100% the bane of my existence... since they were all server customers, the ones that took my advice and let me help them switch over to Debian suddenly stopped being frequent footgun fliers, no matter what their original issue was.
Ubuntu, to me, is simply Debian that has been aggressively turned into enterprise slop.
There has to be some acceptable default that doesn't change too much, even if it's not the best thing ever. Ubuntu changed DEs twice even though the original was fine. Windows UI is intentionally bad at this point, but at least it's stable.
Windows 2000 to XP to Vista to 7 were big breaks in UI. 7 to 10 was a break. 10 to 11 was a break. When I now click the lower left corner, weather opens. When I'm pressing the Windows key, no applications menu to be seen, just some web search slop.
The only thing that's constant with windows are the lying percentages, where 99% and 100% take as long as 0-98%...
Unless I'm misremembering, Windows key still opens the start menu with your apps. It's just that they added tons of adware and crap next to it.
Take Ubuntu, for example. It’s one of the most popular and recommended distros for non-techy users, but just look at the install process: https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/install-ubuntu-desktop#1-overvi...
Let’s be honest, I don’t think most people would actually go through with that.
One idea to fix this and get more people to switch would be for Ubuntu to offer a Windows app that handles everything. It could download the ISO in the background, format the flash drive, install Ubuntu in dual boot with Windows by default, and clearly explain each step so users know how to start using Ubuntu or go back to Windows.
EDIT: Beyond skill, just getting the external media is a substantial friction. I haven't used a thumb drive besides for Linux install media in 15 years; I'm good at computers but just finding / buying one of those things is its own roadblock.
This sort of thing used to be more common. My first exposure to Linux was before CD-Rs were ubiquitous so there was often no possibility of using external media if you downloaded Linux. Partitioning the drive and installing there was typical.
Installing Ubuntu bricked a Samsung laptop I had some years back. Never again.
On the other hand, if someone finds that part too complicated to follow perhaps they may not be able to install Linux - or Windows for that matter - by themselves and come across other issues down the line. Ultimately replacing your OS with another one does require some minimum level of technical knowledge that you either need to have or be fine with learning during the process.
- Avoid requiring the user to figure out how to get into BIOS/EFI and change boot order. Windows has APIs for manipulating EFI things, may be worth looking into that.
- Replace GRUB with something more modern like rEFInd or Clover with a nice looking theme.
For the latter point, while GRUB is technically functional, it looks scary and arcane to new users and has little resiliency to things like Windows updates mucking with boot entries. It makes for a bad first impression (“why is my computer showing hacker screens suddenly”) and when it breaks your average user doesn’t have a prayer of fixing it. Something that looks more modern and self-heals would be a big improvement.
I am almost certain something like this existed 15-20 years ago from Canonical.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wubi_(software)
Ubuntu and Linux Mint are now recommending balenaEtcher, which is easier to use than Rufus.
https://blog.balena.io/did-etcher-break-my-usb-sd-card/
> to fix your busted drive, just nuke the boot sector and send it
> bash
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/xxx bs=512 count=1 conv=notrunc
For the tech, sure but for common people not so.
Why cannot Ubuntu just offer a download media creation tool like Windows does. Surely it's not that hard to couple dd with a batch gui.
The biggest sticking point is the fear of losing what they do have, but we're at the point where even their previous generation computer could be made to run Linux.
I guess I'm not surprised with how frequently "reinstall Windows" is offered as a solution, that there is now some lighter version of that. But really I was talking about obtaining/creating installation media and reinstalling from scratch.
Except of course, licenses and copy protection. That stuff is gone and you have to buy it all again, since the install-id is regenerated.
„Running Linux in VM“ as you have put it, is miles better because it works all the time with 0 friction, driver issues, random freezes, reboots, etc.
Hardware support issues are certainly understandable, but blaming "opinionated nerds" for them is asinine. It cannot be understated how difficult it is to deal with certain OEMs.
https://atkdinosaurus.wordpress.com/2023/03/24/another-way-t...
At the same time, we still have a major problem at work if Microsoft goes through with this. I work in a research lab with 10s of 1000s of dollars worth of Windows 10 workstations that cannot be upgraded. We use Windows remote desktop and plenty of other software that is Windows only. The hardware is still pretty new and capable. With NIH cuts the last thing we need now is to have to spend money and lots of time to replace all that for no good reason.
You can buy extended support for orgs like yours that require it - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/extended...
1. in higher use than its successors
2. only had one possible successor
3. the successor did not support hardware in use at the time
?
I'm sure it won't stop them, as you say, but really Microsoft, as someone who used to be a (relatively rare at the time) defender of yours, get fucked. The Raymond Chen camp is truly dead (https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost...)
2. ... I mean, that's every version of Windows. XP? Vista. Vista? 7, etc. The last time you had two choices of Windows was in the '90s.
3. It does support hardware in use 'at the time'. I upgraded from 10 to 11 on existing hardware.
If you mean older hardware, 98 and NT4 were the last to support the 486, yet 486s were still in use by the time of release of Me/2000 (I sadly had to interact with said 486s in a school lab). XP -> Vista made the jump from a Pentium 233Mhz minimum to 800Mhz minimum, /and/ caused many issues due to the introduction of WDDM causing a lot of graphics hardware to become incompatible.
This is nothing new. Those pulling the shocked pikachu face perhaps just haven't been around the Windows block enough to realize... this is nothing new.
Microsoft (well, the Windows part) is looking more and more like the Apple and Sun in that article. It’s the #2 or #3 user-facing OS these days. The fancy new programming environment happened and most stuff moved there, but it’s JavaScript and the browser rather than C# and .NET. Running old software is becoming a niche and getting more so by the day.
It's the same situation as last time with Windows 7. You can get three years of extended support for the monthly cumulative update, which I assume is being done given it is fairly inexpensive. The US government gets favorable pricing from Microsoft.
The consumer price for Windows 10 ESU is $30/$60/$90 for the first/second/third year.
Some companies may be buying prolongation for specific equipment which run win10.
Computers are cheap!
Windows 10 ending in October blows my mind in contrast to the free as in beer near GUI-less Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2019 receiving extended support (security updates) until 2029. I'll probably assemble a patched-up/slipstreamed installer for recycling older equipment!
Anticheats like BattleEye started as private servers add-ons like this too, not official support, but admins choose to install them. I even remember Brood War's private ICCUP servers had their anti-hack as they called it.
Of course the well known gaming company that releases a distro is Valve. But, rootkits don’t seem like they fit their particular ethos (they are well known for their less annoying DRM scheme, right?). TBH, it seems like a rare opportunity to break the hold they have on the “game store” concept.
Fortnite uses EAC which does work on Linux, only they decide to block it.
Linux's inability to run specific anti-cheat solutions is a vendor support issue on the anti-cheat maker's part, because they don't care about your security, and they've managed to convince game developers that this practice is acceptable. It's not. Vote with your wallet.
If a user agrees to a kernel level anti-cheat, it's not a rootkit.
I'm not holding my breath for this to happen though.
The issue is that Windows is designed to be able to protect the will of proprietary software publishers against the will of users that want to assert control over the software running on their computer. It's very similar to the story with DRM.
Linux desktop OSes will never put in place the measures to make a Vanguard-like system work, because it's just unethical for a bunch of reasons, the most basic of which being that it's a violation of freedoms 0 and 1.
This isn't true. And supply chain wise just look at the xz backdoor. A random person was able to compromise the supply chain of many Linux distros. Security also is not just supply chain integrity.
>Windows is designed to be able to protect the will of proprietary software publishers against the will of users
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Just because Micrsoft cares about developers, it doesn't mean they don't care about users.
>that it's a violation of freedoms 0 and 1
It's not. Freedom 0 and 1 does not give you the freedom to cheat against other players without being banned. You can be free to modify the game client, but you aren't entitled to play with others using it.
The xz backdoor was successfully caught before it landed in mainstream release branches, because it's free software.
But broadening the scope a bit, the norms of using package managers as opposed to the norm on Windows of "download this .exe" is a much stronger security posture overall.
I am aware the Windows Store exists, it's not widely used enough to make exes a marginal distribution pathway. I am aware curl | bash exists, it's more common than it should be, but even in those cases the source is visible and auditable, and that's very uncommon for non-technical users to ever do (unlike downloading random exes).
> Freedom 0 and 1 does not give you the freedom to cheat against other players without being banned.
That's a strawman, I never claimed you should have the right to cheat against other players.
> You can be free to modify the game client, but you aren't entitled to play with others using it.
And that's the issue, Windows has functionality to impede your ability to run the software as you see fit and modify it to your needs. Perhaps you want to run your own server, with different moderation policies.
What? It literally got included with several distros. It wasn't caught before it shipped to end users. Just because it got caught before slower to update distros got it, that doesn't mean it is okay. It reveals how low the barrier is for an anonymous person to get code into the OS.
>I never claimed you should have the right to cheat against other players.
Attestation doesn't take away your ability to modify and run software which means that you still have freedom 0 and 1. It just means that you can not prove to a remote server that you bare running unmodified software. To me you were implying that the server being able to kick people who modified the client to cheat was violating their freedom.
>Perhaps you want to run your own server, with different moderation policies.
Nothing would stop you from running your own server like that.
For a multiplayer game, I'd argue that playing with others (even if you're restricted to private servers, not that most games support that anymore..) is running the software. Being able to use a piece of software for its intended purpose is more relevant than a literal reading "you are allowed to exec the binary and nothing more"
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/securely-extending-...
But with Linux being open, they certainly would produce a loadable module if there was enough install base to justify it.
True, but the main point of a kernel mode anticheat is the ability to verify that the OS and game isn't being tampered with. If the OS has that capability already built in, then the needed for a kernel mode anticheat diminishes.
>they certainly would produce a loadable module if there was enough install base to justify it
It's not realistic for there to be such an install base to support such complexity compared to having them implement a simple API into their game and server.
It's not actually the message from the kernel that provides the value, it's the work needed to fake such a message.
What do you exactly mean by this as right now no users can use Linux and play the game. Allowing more Linux operating systems to be able to play the game is providing users more choice than before.
>Client-side anticheat is inherently security through obscurity
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with security through obscurity. It's just that for some problems the return on investment (security gained for the resources needed) is not worth it. For anticheat the obscurity can slow down cheat developers and raise the barrier to entry for developing cheats. Cheaters just have to make one mistake to get caught.
I only wish the process/instructions were a little more friendly for normies.
In practice, it may not work properly even on their "supported" models. For example, sound does not work on my Dell E7270. Secondly, you must be willing use the Chrome browser. I will not because Chrome no longer has the option to always show the scrollbars. I am convinced that modern UX/UI designers hate their users.
No comments yet
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fendof10.org%2F
This is the first post to get substantial conversation, though. The impression I get is that on-topic reposts are fine until such time as they get traction - provided that they a. aren’t self-promotion and b. are made by different users.
There's been ton of progress, thankfully people keep using linux besides the very vocal frustrated "failed" migrations.
At a fraction of time spent following this guide you can extend win 10 by a few more years by switching to ltsc or go win11 bypassing all software restrictions
In a more reasonable world they’d owe their customers a recall.
As a response to the kernel's various SNAFUs, I've gone ahead and refunded to myself all of the money I've spent on Linux kernels over the past several decades -- and updated my install to the new version for free.
A well configured firewall between your computer and the internet, uBlock Origin in the browser, and not downloading untrusted files off the internet can do a long way to help. Not stopping everything but at least shielding you from the worst.
I think the bigger issue is like on iPhones and Androids. Your software and apps stop supporting your OS long before the hardware or OS fails you.
Which from what I understand is that even Windows 11 still has support for SMBv1.
But my point was that your standard “up to date” XP install in 2016 was highly vulnerable and could effectively be nuked by such an attack. It took nearly 7 years after support ended for that to happen. So you could theoretically get another 7 years out of Windows 10 before a similar situation happens where a global cyberattack negatively impacts you with no way to protect yourself because your OS doesn’t support a configuration that would prevent you from being a victim.
Btw I do have a spare PC, it only got Win10 because the GPU didn't support 7, and it's not getting 11 even though it supports it. Microsoft's job to keep that secure.
It is definitely possible to heavily lockdown a Windows computer to prevent 99% of attacks and if you don’t need WAN access especially that becomes significantly easier.
It is far more likely browsers will drop support for 10 in a few years and that will be what stops the average user from being able to continue to use their Windows 10 computer.
Think about the demand and supply curves of calculations (or computation). For most of history, they moved in tandem, with supply moving slightly faster, so computers would always do more at slightly lower costs.
Now both curves are speeding up, but demand is moving faster, so the costs of hardware are going up. And when high end servers (with GPUs) are unavailable, people hold onto the older ones longer.
Can't help thinking that should be in a bigger font. It's a shame there doesn't seem to be a away to install Linux and keep your Documents directory at least. Is that due to file systems?
[Yes, yes, backup to memory stick/external drive but I'm talking about for your average person on the street]
So long as enough contiguous space is available to install the desired Linux distro.
You can't do this all on the same drive, because you need a place to copy the documents directory to. You need to delete the NTFS partition to create the place to copy the files to, but by the time you've done that, the Documents are inaccessible. You could do it in memory, feasibly, if you create a RAMdisk and are lucky enough to have enough memory for all your documents, but then you're still gambling on not running out of memory during the install.
So it is possible to copy the documents on the same device, and it's possible to even automate the process, but it's not possible to do it reliably or safely, and the reliability is so low that it's not worth even offering the possibility. If somebody has a handful of gigabytes of documents, it's already a nonstarter. To be safe you'd demand the user make a backup onto another device anyway, in which case they might as well do that and then copy the files into a fresh install themselves
It's not just shrinking and copying over to the new `/home` because of the locality of the data. If your NTFS partition is taking the entirety of the disk (minus EFI and system partitions), shrinking it will then make it take up the first X% of the disk. Then you have to make the linux installation on the last (100-X)% of the disk, copy the files over, and then when you delete the NTFS partition, your Linux filesystem is on the last half of the disk with a big blank unallocated area on the beginning. BTRFS or LVM2 could help a little bit there, but that's far from ideal in any case.
Probably the best approach would be to shrink NTFS, create a new partition at the end of at least the right size, copy the files over, then wipe the NTFS partition, install Linux as the first partition (after system/EFI and such), then copy the files into the user's home, and then remove the documents partition. That's still not super reliable, though. You are at the mercy of your documents sizes, filesystem fragmentation (remember, even if your filesystem is mostly empty, you might not be able to shrink if fragmentation is in a bad place. You could defrag, but then the install time can balloon up many hours for the defrag process alone, just to shrink a filesystem that you're going to delete anyway), how big the Linux install will end up being, and many other factors. You'd have a lot of people who simply can't copy their documents over on install who will be simply SOL. I can't think of a situation where this kind of thing wouldn't be better served by just telling the user to backup their documents to a USB drive and move them back afterward, because many people are going to have to do that anyway.
It’s still a great device, it just sucks I’m stuck with windows (10).
https://github.com/linux-surface/linux-surface
And that's it, they are lost and tired at that point. They will just go back to Windows.
Yes, it is often possible to upgrade your PC hardware to make it compatible with Windows 11, but the feasibility and cost depend heavily on which specific requirements your current PC fails to meet.
Windows 11 has stricter hardware requirements than Windows 10, primarily focusing on security and modern capabilities. The key hurdles for older PCs are usually:
CPU (Processor) Compatibility:
Requirement: 1 GHz or faster with 2 or more cores on a compatible 64-bit processor. Microsoft maintains a list of approved CPUs. Generally, this means Intel 8th Gen (Coffee Lake) or newer, and AMD Ryzen 2000 series or newer.
Upgradability: This is often the trickiest and most expensive upgrade. If your CPU isn't on the list, you would likely need to replace your motherboard AND CPU (and possibly RAM, as newer motherboards often require different RAM types). This is essentially building a new core system and might not be cost-effective for an older PC. TPM (Trusted Platform Module) 2.0:
Requirement: TPM version 2.0. This is a hardware security module that stores cryptographic keys. Upgradability: Enable in BIOS/UEFI: Many PCs manufactured in the last 5-7 years actually have TPM 2.0 (or fTPM/PTT, firmware-based TPM) but it might be disabled in the BIOS/UEFI settings. This is the easiest fix – just enable it. Add a TPM Module: Some older motherboards (typically from around the Intel 6th/7th gen or similar AMD era) have a TPM header where you can purchase and install a physical TPM 2.0 module. This is a relatively inexpensive upgrade if your motherboard supports it. Motherboard Replacement: If your motherboard doesn't have an integrated fTPM/PTT and lacks a TPM header, you would need to replace the motherboard (which usually means a new CPU and RAM too). UEFI Firmware with Secure Boot Capability:
Requirement: Your system firmware must be UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface, a modern BIOS replacement) and Secure Boot capable. Upgradability: Enable in BIOS/UEFI: Similar to TPM, many modern PCs are UEFI-capable but might be running in "Legacy BIOS" or "CSM" (Compatibility Support Module) mode. You can often switch to UEFI mode in your BIOS/UEFI settings.
Enable Secure Boot: Once in UEFI mode, you can usually enable Secure Boot from within the BIOS/UEFI settings. Motherboard Limitation: Very old PCs might only support Legacy BIOS and not UEFI at all. In this case, a motherboard replacement would be necessary. RAM (Memory):
Requirement: 4 GB or greater. Upgradability: This is usually the easiest and cheapest upgrade. Most desktops and many laptops allow you to add more RAM. Storage:
Requirement: 64 GB or larger storage device. Upgradability: Easily upgradable. You can replace a smaller HDD/SSD with a larger one. Graphics Card:
Requirement: Compatible with DirectX 12 or later with WDDM 2.0 driver. Upgradability: Most integrated and dedicated graphics cards from the last several years meet this. If yours doesn't, you could install a new graphics card (for desktops) or be out of luck (for laptops). How to Check Your PC's Compatibility: The best way to determine what specifically is holding your PC back is to use Microsoft's PC Health Check app. It will tell you exactly which requirements your system meets and which it doesn't.
Summary of Upgrade Possibilities: Most Common & Easiest: Enabling TPM 2.0 in BIOS/UEFI. Enabling Secure Boot in BIOS/UEFI (after switching to UEFI mode if needed). Adding more RAM (if less than 4GB). Upgrading storage drive size. More Involved & Potentially Costly: Adding a physical TPM 2.0 module (if your motherboard has the header). Upgrading the CPU (often requires a new motherboard and RAM too). Replacing the motherboard (almost always requires new CPU and RAM). Upgrading the graphics card (for desktops). Is it worth it? For older PCs that require a new CPU and motherboard, it often makes more sense financially to purchase a new PC that comes with Windows 11 pre-installed or is fully compatible out-of-the-box. The cost of individual component upgrades can quickly add up, and you'll end up with a system that's still fundamentally older than a brand-new one.
However, if you only need to enable TPM/Secure Boot in BIOS or add RAM, it's definitely a viable and cheap way to get on Windows 11.
Anecdata— a mate of mine plays Hell Divers 2, and thought he couldn’t play it or it wouldn’t work well. I told I had played it and it worked fine. Two days later, he’s using Linux and getting better performance than he was on Windows.
It has been five years of gaming exclusively on Linux, and I have yet to find a game I can’t play with the only exceptions (for me) being League of Legends and iRacing. But I can live without them. If you don’t play extremely competitive online games you can probably play it. My rule of thumb is, “are there IRL pro tournaments for money?” if there aren’t it’ll very likely just work.
My only tip is just use something like common. Ubuntu, Mint, PopOS, Arch, ZorinOS, Kubuntu… all will probably work with zero effort. Don’t go mucking about with weird distros, and bizarre tweaks, and you’re more than likely gonna have the most stable system you’ve ever used.
I cannot recommend Linux highly enough. Five years ago I was skeptical and unsure but tired of Windows bullshit and here I am— still loving it. I’ve fully upgraded the system recently, except for the GPU (because 5090 prices are ridiculous and I don’t want less VRAM than my 3090 has) and it even booted from my old install and just worked.
Try Linux, friends. It’s pretty freaking great these days.
And if enough people move to Linux even those holdouts will eventually have to support it. The Steam deck has been the gateway drug to Linux for the masses, and I’m stoked for it. Moving to Linux for my desktop gaming machine was the single best decision I made 5 years ago, and I haven’t used Windows since. It’s more stable than Windows ever was, and I also don’t have an errant update break a game, the system, or cause a reboot at the worst possible time.
So what?
If you are not driven by curiosity, most of the time the driver is either money, a vision of software as only an occupation, work life balance, etc.
Which is usually the kind of people that is not excited by software, doesn't have a passion for it and even take passion away from others.
As someone who has setting up new computers regularly dumped on them, having to click thru all of those dumb screens before being allowed to start using the browser has been the biggest contributor in my decision to ditch Windows
1. Nothing is googleable. People have to google how to do things like adjust the layout of external monitors, and it's significantly harder to do that on linux.
2. There are a lot of different ways to install applications, and different options are available depending on which distro or application you're targeting
2. Most distros have an App Store that’s easy to find these days. Works great for non-cli tools
It's like 900x easier to install random software you find about online on a Mac (there's zip containing the .app directory, done), and about 10x easier to install random software on Windows (they give you a .exe you double click, click next a few times, done). Versus Linux where you look at a list of different file types, consider the differences between a .deb, .rpm, figure out if it should come from Flathub, deal with enabling unverified Flathub packages, possibly disable a Flathub package from your distro that sucks and overrides the maintainer's package, etc. See things like https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1htu87i/it_to...
Having set one parent up on Mint, I can say categorically that it is still a bit of a config nightmare.
Then everything works... until you try to adjust the display brightness.
This on pre-2020 Lenovo laptops.
On the desktop side, the GNOME online accounts feature is pretty good at getting you most of the way there.
No comments yet
Then again plenty of modern browsers have some type of profile syncing built in, which does all this for you.
> email inboxes
Please don't use POP3. Your inbox should live on a remote server and simply follow your account. Storing your inbox exclusively on your PC will make you very sad some day.
most cheaper/free email providers have a storage limit.
besides, i disagree conceptually. if i want to reduce the risk of my email being read or handed to someone i don't trust, then removing it from the server is a good idea. i can make my own backups.
In a way I kind of wish this was how more windows support was handled just because PowerShell is so uhh... powerful.
It might be that Linux is less capable for your use case, but people seem to be generally content with ChromeOS and I think that the standard Fedora desktop install is more capable than that so I think the market exists.
I've found Ubuntu's default, and "vanilla gnome shell" to both be pretty cohesive and "modern".
And at the same time, I've never really felt like Windows or Mac actually end up with a more cohesive UI than the various linux desktop envs. For every Qt/GTK theming mismatch, I find a Windows mismatch between apps due to Windows being 12+ generations of design languages and toolkits built on top of each other. (e.g. the 3+ distinct "current" windows control panel looks (11, then 10, then 7, then XP as you keep digging into more and more obscure settings). And apps typically "freeze" at the UI design when they're born. e.g. XP apps still look XP, and so on.
And on Mac, you have the (relatively!) small number of apps actually artfully designed for macos. And then you have all the other ones - electron, java-based, cross-platform Qt apps (which naturally look like Qt apps... just like on KDE/gnome).
There's of course various quibbles over font render, that have existed since time immemorial. I don't think any one platform really wins hands-down here, though it's my understanding that mac typically does the best (as long as none of the non-mac-native apps manage to mess it up).
I really think people just have double-standards at this point, where their "home" platform's flaws are minor, and candidates to replace it must be flawless. (I'll also admit I'm the same, though NATURALLY I think I'm right - i figure if everything is electron and mismatched anyway, I might as well have a free-as-in-freedom operating system under it. Nobody is putting ads in my start menu or advertising xbox game pass to me in my notifications.
There are a huge number of examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/
I used to use Openbox and compile my own freetype with patches but these days want to spend my time on other things, so I'm just using macOS which has the best out of the box experience with the lowest TODO list when setting up a new computer.
It's hard for me to imagine anything uglier than the above, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say.