Linux OS for a new user

[Halcyon]

Linux will not be appreciably any faster or slower than Windows.

I have to disagree with this comment also. I find Linux *much* more responsive than Windows 10. We run Windows 10 at work on $10k+ workstations and it's still garbage (that's mostly due to the GUI). It spends most of its time with silly window transitions, spinny ball things and faffing about.

[Ampera]

I'm using Putty for telnet/ssh/serial on linux if Gui is needed (Free for linux & M$)  , and use minicom if commandline.

/Bingo

I was about to go off on about how saying there are no good TTY utilities on Linux is absolute bullshit, considering how Unix has been doing TTY stuff of one form or another since The Beatles were still singing.

Linux is here if you do not want windows, and I am still amazed at the number of people here who don't seem to get how that might work. Not being Windows means not having Windows tools all the time, and having Linux tools and solutions instead. This is going to be a tradeoff, nobody would argue otherwise, but there are all too many concepts and tools Linux absolutely destroys Windows implementations with, particularly in concepts like fs management, transparent block device access, simpler user/group management & permissions, considerably nicer and more versatile remote access options (ssh, xpra, vnc, rdp are all supported, and can all operate with X, and some can even work together), on an order of magnitude more impressive package management solutions, with most distros offering incredibly complete repositories of software, and managers allowing you to in a matter of a few minutes completely update entire systems and all user software, etc. etc. The point being for a lot of people having to use LibreOffice instead of MS Office is not that much of a deal considering the plethora of benefits you get.

tl;dr - If you want your Windows tools, then why are you talking here in a thread about Linux?

[themadhippy]

allowing you to in a matter of a few minutes completely update entire systems and all user software, etc.

And 99.9% of the time those updates take place in the background,even a with a full os upgrade you tend to still be able to carry on using  the machine.No staring  at a blue screen with "buggering up updating  your software  67% completed"

[Kilrah]

I have to disagree with this comment also. I find Linux *much* more responsive than Windows 10. We run Windows 10 at work on $10k+ workstations and it's still garbage (that's mostly due to the GUI). It spends most of its time with silly window transitions, spinny ball things and faffing about.

Your company must not know about SSDs. Can't think of another reason, since I've got W10 running perfectly fine with no slowdowns on $300 machines.
Launching apps can be slow, but it's just as slow on linux since, well, the CPU is what it is regardless of the OS.

It's been a long while I've been able to see a responsiveness difference between Windows and a linux distro.

[nctnico]

I'm using Putty for telnet/ssh/serial on linux if Gui is needed (Free for linux & M$)  , and use minicom if commandline.

But when you have to close the serial port you have to restart Putty to reconnect. And no making changing to the settings afterwards as well. From all serial terminal emulators for Linux Putty is probably one of the lesser choices (also because Putty starts to draw 100% CPU power if the port dissapears and you want the UI to remain). All in all Putty is not a well written program.

[nctnico]

tl;dr - If you want your Windows tools, then why are you talking here in a thread about Linux?

To show that there isn't a Linux alternative to every tool and even seemingly simple tools which just have a good workflow might not have a Linux counterpart. Ergo it makes a lot of sense to keep Windows around in a VM so you can use both at the same time.

[Karel]

The closest equivalent for hyperterminal is Cutecom.

(make sure you install the latest version, 0.51 at this moment, via your packagemanager)

[Ampera]

To show that there isn't a Linux alternative to every tool and even seemingly simple tools which just have a good workflow might not have a Linux counterpart. Ergo it makes a lot of sense to keep Windows around in a VM so you can use both at the same time.

In the entire time I have used Linux there is only one program type I have found which is not done well on Linux, and I cannot get a Wine or native working environment for, and that is 3D CAD, specifically for making 3D printer models. Every single other thing I have ever needed to use is available on Linux, showing that your experiences are distinctly your own, and do not apply to Linux as a whole.

Your company must not know about SSDs. Can't think of another reason, since I've got W10 running perfectly fine with no slowdowns on $300 machines.
Launching apps can be slow, but it's just as slow on linux since, well, the CPU is what it is regardless of the OS.

It's been a long while I've been able to see a responsiveness difference between Windows and a linux distro.

Baldercrap x2

I've noticed a plethora of performance and usability improvements on the same hardware, on the same drive, with Windows compared to Linux. Linux to reach it's fullest efficiency has to be optimized (as I said before), allowing things like far superior boot and system loading times (due to lighter programs and environments), but even without any specific tinkering, updating is faster, programs tend to be smaller and lighter on Linux, especially drivers which tend to be far more efficient (games are a good example, where titles using Proton often outperform the same exact code on Windows, despite having syscall translation, and sometimes even graphics API translation).

The sheer fact that you /need/ an SSD to have a usable Windows environment is exactly telling to how chunked up and bogged down Windows is, even in the most light of configurations. I've run Linux on many a hard drive, and while SSDs are indeed faster, it's not the difference between being able to reasonably use your computer or not.

But when you have to close the serial port you have to restart Putty to reconnect. And no making changing to the settings afterwards as well. From all serial terminal emulators for Linux Putty is probably one of the lesser choices (also because Putty starts to draw 100% CPU power if the port dissapears and you want the UI to remain). All in all Putty is not a well written program.

I've never noticed much of this on PuTTY despite the config menu closing upon connection (which I believe can be disabled in a setting, I don't recall), but regardless of that, there's an insane plethora of alternatives and different programs. Wine is also more capable than ever now, and programs nobody ever dreamed of being able to use now work perfectly with often no confliguration required.

[nctnico]

but regardless of that, there's an insane plethora of alternatives and different programs.

Quantity ain't quality.

[themadhippy]

I have to disagree with this comment also. I find Linux *much* more responsive than Windows 10. We run Windows 10 at work on $10k+ workstations and it's still garbage (that's mostly due to the GUI). It spends most of its time with silly window transitions, spinny ball things and faffing about.

Your company must not know about SSDs. Can't think of another reason

Really ? from grub to  to firefox  home page appearing without any spinning pointers, ubuntu 17 seconds. win 10 with latest updates  (that took over an hour of unusable machine) 24 seconds.Both on the same ssd .Not very scientific,no optimising anything,just both systems set  up  how i likes em.And dont even  start on shutdown times.,or powering down after a beer or six without  waiting  shut down to finish.

[Kilrah]

just both systems set  up  how i likes em

allowing things like far superior boot and system loading times (due to lighter programs and environments)

That's more of the key and a difference in philosophy, on Windows it is standard to have a number of programs that autolaunch for convenience, while the linux standard is "lean" with none of that so of course it will boot faster.
I have a dual boot on the machine I'm on, and yes Windows "how I like it" takes a few seconds more to boot, but that is with my 10 common programs starting automatically. If I set up the linux system to do the same it's no better, or even worse. Also my Linux install has at some point (after an update  ) decided to hang for 20-30 seconds on some random thing during every boot and I never managed to figure out what that is... Windows hasn't done that to me for more than a decade on multiple computers.

updating is faster

And dont even  start on shutdown times.,or powering down after a beer or six without  waiting  shut down to finish.

Don't agree, and it does so at less convenient times. Windows does most updates unnoticed in the background without needing a restart, and for those that occasionally do I couldn't care less that it takes 30 seconds more on shutdown (I don't wait for my machine to shut down, I tell it to do so and walk away so it can take all the time it wants) nor start up since that's always short, but on linux the pesky unattended-upgrades run on startup and often hog 50% CPU for more than 5 minutes, while also locking apt so if you want to install something you can't and have to wait for a frustratingly long amount of time while retrying repeatedly to find when it's finally done.

The sheer fact that you /need/ an SSD to have a usable Windows environment

I've had SSDs in my machines since 2010, an HDD is unacceptable regardless of OS. Firefox/whatever program will do as many I/Os on either.

I don't understand people mainly quoting boot times. My PC takes 20 seconds to boot at the start of the day, then I spend 8 hours on it. I don't care about 10 seconds at boot time, I care about the performance while I'm working and that's basically same-same on both.

[Ampera]

That's more of the key and a difference in philosophy, on Windows it is standard to have a number of programs that autolaunch for convenience, while the linux standard is "lean" with none of that so of course it will boot faster.
I have a dual boot on the machine I'm on, and yes Windows "how I like it" takes a few seconds more to boot, but that is with my 10 common programs starting automatically. If I set up the linux system to do the same it's no better, or even worse. Also my Linux install has at some point (after an update  ) decided to hang for 20-30 seconds on some random thing during every boot and I never managed to figure out what that is... Windows hasn't done that to me for more than a decade on multiple computers.

Huh? I've tried from hell and back to get Windows to start as fast on a hard drive as Linux is capable of, using Server 2016 with almost no programs installed, and pretty much everything turned off, and I can't even get to a login screen in the time it takes my Linux install to reach the desktop (and start however many programs you'd want). This isn't a philosophy thing, this is a, Linux is faster than Windows.

I think the one and only valid point you've made is that, for the untrained user, Linux has a habit of being more volatile than Windows. I personally have never had anything particularly break after an update in Linux, (besides GNOME, but that's a load of shit anyways), though I have had things break, not work right, or have issues, mostly on niche hardware like my Surface Pro 3, which has minor issues with the wlan implementation which was intended for laptops that don't get suspended every 10 minutes. This just comes from Linux's more open and modular nature, which is precisely why the majority of its users enjoy it so much.

Don't agree, and it does so at less convenient times. Windows does most updates unnoticed in the background without needing a restart, and for those that occasionally do I couldn't care less that it takes 30 seconds more on shutdown (I don't wait for my machine to shut down, I tell it to do so and walk away so it can take all the time it wants) nor start up since that's always short, but on linux the pesky unattended-upgrades run on startup and often hog 50% CPU for more than 5 minutes, while also locking apt so if you want to install something you can't and have to wait for a frustratingly long amount of time while retrying repeatedly to find when it's finally done.

I think this is the most full of shit thing you said. I'm glad to inform you that my installation of Linux doesn't automatically update itself, doesn't take half the CPU to do so, and will manage to download and install updates for every single program on the computer in the time it takes Windows sometimes just to /discover/ new updates. I don't even have apt nor dpkg on my system, since it's not Debian based. I'd imagine you're using Ubuntu, with a configuration designed to /just work/, and, as I said previously, at a tradeoff of efficiency and performance. Almost every single complaint you have had about Linux does not apply to me whatsoever, and I use Linux on almost every PC compatible I own.

You are taking your one, personal experience with one distinct variant of Linux and applying it to the entire concept as a whole.

Quantity ain't quality.

Fair enough point, but the idea being there might be something better, since there are so many alternatives of varying quality. The program you are using might just not be as good for how you intend to use it as something else.

[Kilrah]

Huh? I've tried from hell and back to get Windows to start as fast on a hard drive as Linux is capable of, using Server 2016

Server 2016 is a server OS designed to be booted once every few months - no point optimizing boot times 
Many server-grade machines this is supposed to run on will take several minutes just to run their BIOS self-tests anyway.

I'm glad to inform you that my installation of Linux doesn't automatically update itself, doesn't take half the CPU to do so, and will manage to download and install updates for every single program on the computer in the time it takes Windows sometimes just to /discover/ new updates. I don't even have apt nor dpkg on my system, since it's not Debian based. I'd imagine you're using Ubuntu, with a configuration designed to /just work/, and, as I said previously, at a tradeoff of efficiency and performance. Almost every single complaint you have had about Linux does not apply to me whatsoever, and I use Linux on almost every PC compatible I own.

You are taking your one, personal experience with one distinct variant of Linux and applying it to the entire concept as a whole.

Well yes, but you're doing the same thing. And your context is NOT the one discussed in this topic, it is the one of the OP of this thread. A Windows user looking to move to linux for their daily tasks. A configuration designed to "just work" is exactly what they're after, and none of your customizations apply since that's nothing they want to be faffing about. If they have to be faffing about to get a good experience they are NOT going to even consider switching.
That's the majority of the people for you, and the reason Linux is a small minority in desktop use.

I use Linux for many purposes it's absolutely great at, have several computers and devices running it 24/7 at home - but no way I'd be able to use it for desktop use.

[james_s]

Typically for people coming from Windows I recommend trying Mint or Ubuntu, these are both very well supported and nicely polished distros that attempt to be somewhat familiar to Windows users. If you're not ready to commit, you can burn a live DVD or USB flash drive and boot up from that to use it without altering your existing install. For the most part Linux can do anything Windows can do and it is like a breath of fresh air to not have to deal with constant reboots due to forced updates and mountains of crapware getting automatically reinstalled. If you have some software that requires Windows then you have little choice but for more casual use Linux is ready for prime time. I switched my mom over to it a couple years ago and it has been mostly smooth sailing since then, I spend way less time troubleshooting and fixing her computer. My own primary PC is still running Win7 but all of the secondary machines have since been moved to Linux and that is all going fairly smoothly. I plan to switch my main PC over to Ubuntu if Win7 ever becomes non-viable but for now it's working well so momentum is keeping me on it. I will never run Win10, it is banished from my household.

[themadhippy]

Don't agree, and it does so at less convenient times. Windows does most updates unnoticed in the background without needing a restart, and for those that occasionally do I couldn't care less that it takes 30 seconds more on shutdown

so what am i doing wrong? ubuntu politely puts up a box listing the latest updates with options to ignore,cant be arsed i'll do it later or install,click install and off it trundles  into  the background whilst i get on using the pc,maybe a " i need to a reboot"pops up but you can ignore it. Meanwhile with auto updates turned off windows might bring up a pop up if its feeling generous,or more likely do it anyway,first thing you know about it is when you get a nice blue screen appear with a "reeboot now, or i'll do it anyway" or when you go to shut down and  it says "hang on im installing updates you didn't ask for  don't turn off,i know the pubs calling but tuff shit"  then when you start the machine the next day and your greeted with "installing updates 3 of 3 please go for an extented breakfast"

[Kilrah]

Meanwhile with auto updates turned off windows might bring up a pop up if its feeling generous,or more likely do it anyway,first thing you know about it is when you get a nice blue screen appear with a "reeboot now, or i'll do it anyway" or when you go to shut down and  it says "hang on im installing updates you didn't ask for  don't turn off,i know the pubs calling but tuff shit"  then when you start the machine the next day and your greeted with "installing updates 3 of 3 please go for an extented breakfast"

You seem to be talking of Windows 2 years ago.
And again why the heck are you waiting in front of your computer when you shut it down? Go to the pub and forget about it, it cares just fine for itself.

[james_s]

I have to disagree with this comment also. I find Linux *much* more responsive than Windows 10. We run Windows 10 at work on $10k+ workstations and it's still garbage (that's mostly due to the GUI). It spends most of its time with silly window transitions, spinny ball things and faffing about.

Your company must not know about SSDs. Can't think of another reason

Really ? from grub to  to firefox  home page appearing without any spinning pointers, ubuntu 17 seconds. win 10 with latest updates  (that took over an hour of unusable machine) 24 seconds.Both on the same ssd .Not very scientific,no optimising anything,just both systems set  up  how i likes em.And dont even  start on shutdown times.,or powering down after a beer or six without  waiting  shut down to finish.

I have never understood the obsession some people have over boot time. 17 seconds, 24 seconds, who cares? I boot my laptop maybe once every 3 months, the rest of the time I close the lid when I'm done using it and it goes to sleep, open the lid and it wakes up where I left off. Whether it takes 10 seconds or a full minute to boot is hardly of consequence.

Now where it does get incredibly frustrating is when I do need to shut down and/or restart a machine for some reason and I'm forced to wait an hour for some stupid update to finish. When I had a Win10 work laptop I found myself so annoyed by that situation that I'd just hard power-off when it refused to shut down without updating. Not advisable but I hated that thing so that I kind of wished it would crash and burn.

[james_s]

You seem to be talking of Windows 2 years ago.
And again why the heck are you waiting in front of your computer when you shut it down? Go to the pub and forget about it, it cares just fine for itself.

Most often I wanted to put the damn thing in my pack and head home, or I was low on battery and not near a place to plug it in, or I was trying to get work done in time for a deadline and needed to reboot for one reason or another. There are countless other situations too and unfortunately it seemed that MS had your attitude and not even the slightest consideration that what is no problem for you may in fact be a very big problem for someone else.

Today my work PC is a Mac, it is not without faults but I didn't spend my own money on it and for what I use it for I've never been happier. No unwanted updates, no baked in ads, no crapware getting repeatedly reinstalled, it just works. I've never even once been unable to do my job because the computer rudely demanded it had something more important to do.

[themadhippy]

you seem to be talking of Windows 2 years ago.

nope  i sat through the windows update wait routine earlier today

And again why the heck are you waiting in front of your computer when you shut it down? Go to the pub and forget about it, it cares just fine for itself.

personal choice,id rather wait and turn the power off at the wall rather  than leave it on standby whilst im out

[NiHaoMike]

None of these have the combined features and ease of use like hyperterminal. What I use often is the connect/disconnect button because I have the debug CLI and firmware programming interface on the same UART.

Realterm has that as well.

[ledtester]

I surprised no one has mention Tim Bray's venerable terminal program for Windows:

https://sites.google.com/site/terminalbpp/

Designed specifically for controlling and capturing low-level serial communication.

Maybe it's only well known among software devs.

[Kilrah]

There are countless other situations too and unfortunately it seemed that MS had your attitude and not even the slightest consideration that what is no problem for you may in fact be a very big problem for someone else.

Well on my laptops I have auto-updates disabled through GPO, takes 2 minutes and no such issues...

[james_s]

An OS that requires auto updates to be disabled by GPO in order to be usable is broken by design. I expect my computer to work out of the box with minimal tinkering. For it to be so user-hostile as to require hacks like that is ridiculous. I never had to touch GPO in Win7, the older OS offers a clearly superior user experience.

I'm not sure I'll ever grasp what compels some people to be such corporate apologists.

[Halcyon]

I have to disagree with this comment also. I find Linux *much* more responsive than Windows 10. We run Windows 10 at work on $10k+ workstations and it's still garbage (that's mostly due to the GUI). It spends most of its time with silly window transitions, spinny ball things and faffing about.

Your company must not know about SSDs. Can't think of another reason, since I've got W10 running perfectly fine with no slowdowns on $300 machines.
Launching apps can be slow, but it's just as slow on linux since, well, the CPU is what it is regardless of the OS.

It's been a long while I've been able to see a responsiveness difference between Windows and a linux distro.

We run 1TB PCIe SSDs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with disk throughput.

Maybe you're just used to Windows? I find Apple MacOS/IOS just as tedious. Once you've used a good, well-configured Linux distro, everything else feels sluggish. This is coming from a Windows veteran.

[nctnico]

None of these have the combined features and ease of use like hyperterminal. What I use often is the connect/disconnect button because I have the debug CLI and firmware programming interface on the same UART.

Realterm has that as well.

But not all kinds of file transfer protocols. I didn't list an exhaustive list of features I need. I'm going to try SecureCRT.