I'm fairly proficient when it comes to Windows, but the diversity in install methods for Fedora threw me for a loop, too. It seemed easier at first -- get all your software from trusted sources in the default package manager, just like an app store! But then there's the question of RPM vs. Snap vs. Flatpak vs. downloading an installer from their website, some versions being further behind than others, the method you use having implications for where/how programs are installed and maintained, etc. It adds cognitive friction and makes troubleshooting harder; I'm not even sure if there's a reliable way to see a list of all programs installed on your machine (regardless of method) or how to easily uninstall them. I don't regret switching, but it is an obstacle, and more consistently than the initial question of which distro to use.

I've been a full-time Linux user since 1998, and over the years I've invested uncountable hours doing all kinds of tweaking and fixing. But with time that has gotten less and less (probably due to both Linux and me maturing), to the point that I now basically use my laptop as an appliance.

I run Aurora, an immutable Linux distro. It auto-updates the core OS without me even noticing (just remember to reboot your laptop every couple of weeks). It has a software center to install GUI apps (all Flatpak, I think) and comes with brew to install command line apps. Things pretty much just work, and for the occasional small issue, I generally manage to just shrug.

To be fair, one thing still lingers just above my annoyance threshold: connecting/disconnecting monitors while my laptop is suspended will sometimes lead to a black screen when resuming, requiring a reboot. A gentle wink from the bad/good old days. :-)

It's the evergreen of ios vs android. Want to have something that "just works" you'll get exactly that. You want freedom of choice, here you go with all the freedom you can get.

If you want someone that tailors the experience, you'll have to pay with money and freedom.

They absolutely do, the moment you have any problem you are on your own. I spent half a day troubleshooting why nvidia drivers were not loading (mint was not signing them and secure boot silently kicked the module out), and I'm many times more proficient at technology than an average person.

I bought a brand new Dell laptop with Windows 11 25H2 at the end of November 2025. The first patches released by Microsoft in December did not install. WTF!!!

If you go online, you will see a whole YouTube videos and articles on how to fix the issue. Let me tell you, after a considerable amount of time, I gave up.

I'm running Ubuntu 24.04 on my desktop, and I can't remember the last time I had issues applying patches.

Windows has problems all the time. There is widespread knowledge on how to troubleshoot and fix these problems.

Similar problems will have very different solutions for Linux. The knowledge of how to resolve them is much less widespread. I’ve had very good success in asking ChatGPT how to resolve Linux issues, probably better success then I would on Windows because the error messages on Linux are much more detailed.

A lot of the time the "solution" to problems on Windows is to reinstall/in-place upgrade because, as you said, Windows errors tend to be more generic so you can browse Google all you want but none of the instructions people provide will be of much help. So I'm not sure "widespread knowledge" is a point in favor of Windows when the errors frequently aren't specific enough to be reliably actionable.

Windows has a "check the Internet for solutions" option that never works. You can just let Claude code loose on your system and have it go fix your shit for you instead of copy and pasting anything.

> Users don't need to know about any of that

Until they run into one of the many problems that force them to know it. Hell, just googling for "How do I do X in Ubuntu" leads to 20 different random forum threads (because Ubuntu doesn't have any official answer or support for you), with solutions that don't work, because it's random people posting random comments of "what worked for them" over 15 years.

I'm an expert and I can't even figure it out half the time. Regular users are screwed.

Pick any distro and it'll still have at least 3 ways to install software. Might also have 2 window systems and 4 DEs.

> (like Bitwig)

Been there, done that... worked fine but with an unacceptable performance penalty.

Compared to which software? Ableton? Reaper? Did you use RT kernel? JACK or ALSA? Pipewire?

DE will also affect performance.

Compared to Bitwig, since that's what I use on both Macs and Windows PCs. Distro was Ubuntu Studio, which is tooted as an OS "configured for best performance for various purposes: Audio, Graphics, Video, Photography and Publishing", and comes with Jack.

That's kind of surprising? Any idea what might have caused that?

Not really sure... drivers maybe, or sound server ? When it's time to make music I don't want to waste time troubleshooting things so after a few attempts at fixing this I just got back to Windows.

Even if they pick a distro and decide to install it, more often than not the install process is still overly convoluted even in just making installation media.

Going to a distro website and trying to find where to get it (ubuntu has a habit of leading with literally anything else other than regular desktop distro on their front page). Finding a download page, and having it just spit out an iso file, with no explanation on what to do with it, or 'how to install' link in sight (debian, it's very nice that there's a big download button, but like...then what. where's the explanation link. it's buried under other downloads, but that's not very intuitive). Getting to a 'how to install' page and having it be intimidatingly long, perhaps even needlessly. Sites, pages and explainers being laid out in confounding ways, and install process sometimes laid out in a bit of an overcomplicated way. (debian has an installation guide that's presented perhaps in the most intimidating way possible to a new unwitting user, and also buried under click on a click on a click. somehow writing the iso is not even among the first dozen of pages there. ubuntu mate gives you links to iso downloads, and yet the installation process is buried under 'faq' (again, not very intuitive or straightforward), that faq only has a bunch of oddly laid out 'making installation media' pages, and the rest of actual installation process is just somewhere else.)

That's before someone even gets to the actual install process. Somehow all of that stuff hasn't gotten more streamlined or user friendly. If you try to see how one would go about getting and installing any distro, you'd quickly see that it's very confusing and convoluted, way more than it has to be, or needs to be to appeal and be simple for new users.

There's glimmers of hope, like fedora which has its media writer, which is gonna hold your hand through the whole thing. Even that links out to github for a download, despite clicking on a seemingly specific 'windows/mac or linux' button. It's a little buried too, below iso downloads, when it really should be brought up more forward, and explain a little bit better on how it's gonna guide you thru the whole thing.

It really should be an app that's gonna guide you thru it, or a dead simple 1-2-3 step tutorial that's gonna guide you thru writing an image (download writer, download iso, write an image - laying it out more than that is just overcomplicating it really, at least in the initial quick install guide), with a clear, visible link to it - and yet somehow even this is too high of a bar for many distros to clear.

What has done a number on the ease of installing linux is how compact discs have just went away, because having a compact disc, burning it, or having it be just sent to users was making that step of the process simpler. Sure, writing to a USB is easy, but the expectation that everyone's just gonna have a spare usb is naive (and you're never gonna hear that you actually need to buy a usb stick in any of those guides lol), and there's just a little more opportunity to fuck up there (overwriting other disks, unless the writer app is laid out nicely and fail-proof). Distros might as well start selling usb sticks with installers on them. If someone's gonna be brand new to the whole thing and they're gonna have to buy a usb stick anyway, they might as well buy it from the distro with the distro on it already.

Some distros may want to get real about how a new user would even navigate their websites in order to get the thing. Like just trying to go thru that process themselves and see what's that experience like.

> There's glimmers of hope, like fedora which has its media writer, which is gonna hold your hand through the whole thing. Even that links out to github for a download, despite clicking on a seemingly specific 'windows/mac or linux' button. It's a little buried too, below iso downloads, when it really should be brought up more forward, and explain a little bit better on how it's gonna guide you thru the whole thing.

> It really should be an app that's gonna guide you thru it, or a dead simple 1-2-3 step tutorial that's gonna guide you thru writing an image (download writer, download iso, write an image - laying it out more than that is just overcomplicating it really, at least in the initial quick install guide), with a clear, visible link to it - and yet somehow even this is too high of a bar for many distros to clear.

Sorry, but this is just ridiculously nit-picky. How much more hand-holding do you need? Everything you want is literally there. Are you complaining that Fedora also addresses Linux users, at all?

Fact is, installing an operating system is a bit of an involved process. Realistically, people wouldn't even start with the docs, but some YouTube tutorial... But man... Fedora tries so hard! The site is ultra clean and on-point. Docs are friendly and very much 1-2-3 structured, they maintain a fucking media writer to do all the complicated shit like choosing a mirror and checking signatures, a simple installer where all complexity is hidden and you can just hit 'next'. What the hell do you want more?

MacOS and Windows don't even consider OS installation and only show you where you can find their OS preinstalled. Lol.

(I do have to agree with you on ubuntu.com tho. Haven't opened their site in a while and... jesus christ, what a mess!)

Fedora is the better example there. (i literally say that it's the glimmer of hope there lol.) It's an actual utility slash app that will do everything, and not just a file that's just thrown at you with no pointers.

(Though even fedora's download page could use a more clearer "How to install" link next to the iso links there. cause even clicking on Documentation there isn't gonna lead you to an installation tutorial or even let you easily find one there without digging. and even what's written where is either not that great or just doesn't exist lol. like, i would just straight up disagree on docs being friendly in regards to install process. though maybe that's not even necessary cause you're just gonna boot into the installer that'll take you through it. and again, it links out to github instead of actually downloading it right there, which only adds unnecessary confusion. how hard could it be to actually split links per platform? this is again the sort of thing where some people there might presume that 'users will just figure it out', that they will hunt out the correct file there on a page that looks nothing like previous one and is more geared towards devs, even though it could've been streamlined further. putting media writer higher up on the page is a nitpick, lack of a prominent installation guide is not, cause it's not linked to, and it also seemingly doesn't even exist. there's https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f36/install-guid... but not for a more recent version, i guess it just got lost in the shuffle.)

Some Linux distros aren't really doing as good as they could be at making things more accessible to a wider audience and less proficient users. And so the install base stays where it is. I don't think it's extremely nit picky to point out that just linking to an iso and expecting people to just figure it out without even clearly linking to a tutorial is not very accessible. And it really could be as simple as just actually having a link that says "How to install" or "Installation guide", and it's baffling when that stuff is buried. People could use trying to look at these things from a perspective of a new user who's not familiar with these things, and not just from someone who's in the know. Cause it's not actually intuitive or accessible having to dig around a website, trying to guess which of the links would take you there. (other downloads? documentation? support? none of these are an actual guide, and sometimes you won't even find a link to a guide there either.) There seems to be an assumption that just giving an iso file is enough, and that assumption is incorrect.

For example, Debian does kind of a bad job there cause it just throws an iso there and leaves you to poke at other links and guess, the installation guide there is buried under a bunch of clicks for some reason. Ubuntu is pretty good (though im still baffled why won't they feature their desktop version even more prominently on their front page. now that's an actual nitpick), and it actually outlines 'how to install' right there next to the download, and has an actual link to a more comprehensive tutorial too, that's laid out pretty nicely as well. (that's pretty much perfect really. though some other flavors of ubuntu might not be as great there.) Compare https://www.debian.org/releases/forky/amd64/ and https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/install-ubuntu-desktop (both also first results from google on 'distro name how to install'). Debian's idea of a guide is kind of diabolical in comparison. It looks intimidating, it's plainly a pain in the ass to navigate, it's not laid out well whether you a new user or even if you know what's up, it's easier to just give up on that page and look elsewhere for something better formatted. But hey, maybe Debian isn't even really meant to be all that accessible or to be for the kinds of users that ubuntu might cater to. Or rather, it just won't be, if it's gonna be like that.

Windows is quite easy to install. They have a media writer too and their installer is pretty straightforward. It'll even do an in place upgrade that will just work. They clearly have considered OS installation, and have a couple of different tools available for it. They also still sell usb sticks with an installer on it.

To be honest, I don't think Debian and Fedora are even targeting total beginners and that's fine with me. I love Fedora, but I wouldn't recommend it as a first ever Linux distro.

But yeah, I have to take back my rage somewhat, since I realized the Fedora docs are not once mentioning what actually to do with a "boot medium". Granted the installer is pretty self-explanatory, it's a bit odd the rebooting hint is omitted.

I disagree on the GitHub thing. It's an easy way to maintain and safely distribute the binaries. It's likely a thing of maintenance capacity and I won't fault anyone for that. All this shit is free... And lots of it is work in progress.

Also quite frankly, if someone can't be bothered to pick the right binary for their OS, the whole process of installing a new OS is maybe a bit too advanced to do unsupervised. Let's be real, this level of curiosity and engagement is required to install and run Linux. I don't think it should be pushed onto anyone not up for the challenge. In my experience, that doesn't end well.

Again, all this shit is free. Fedora, although backed by Redhat, does not profit at all by anyone installing Fedora. They don't nudge you towards commercial products, don't collect or sell your data, no subscriptions, no ads... nothing (in contrast with Ubuntu, which actually does these things). Any voice of entitlement just hurts me a little, seeing how much they try.