one can not ignore that on windows you get the job done and if something goes wrong, the rollback solutions are way much easier than on linux.. the thing is: click next, next, ok, wait, reboot, is the simplest and best way of installing something that (in the most cases) will just work.. on the other hand, we have ppas, deb packages (rpm and so on), etc... and not always things goes right and works..
In my experience, not every thing always goes right and works on Windows... particularly when versioning come into play.
I think something overlooked by many when regarding Windows vs Linux is the massive amounts of money and resources companies like Microsoft have at their disposal. I know at the end of the day consumers/users just want products that work as they should, but the above does play a huge factor when comparing the two. It is a reality that has to be considered. The main point of contention for mine is that the "improvements" Microsoft are focusing on revolve around user data collection and advertisement. Linux may not be perfect, but I think its essential that people stick fat and support an alternative. Its free, and offers users a platform away from the main offerings, that act more like dictatorships, than giving customers real options. Hence sites like MDL and the Windows 10 forum offering users ways to circumvent Microsoft's intrusive operating system. If it wasn't for Linux, what would be the alternative, Apple?
Shhhhh....only say such things vewy kwietwy...: Otherwise the devoutly religious appleheads might hear & have to activate their lynch-mob !! Then. one might find one's self running from the devout - only to be caught and 'saved' with massive injections of prozak before finally being lynched while smiling that mindless smile...definitely NOT pretty. All I have to say, personally, is this=> (Even though I do quite adore Ubuntu Mate 16.04 !!)
About 30 years ago, I started computing on a Commodore 64. Then I moved on to an HP 150 running MSDOS 2.11 (It was a touchscreen computer in 1984), HP Vectra with MSDOS 3.1 then Windows 3.0. I've used Windows 3.1, Windows NT 4.0, Windows for Workstations, Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows Millenium, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and finally Windows 10. I've also been the HP-UX CAD administrator for our engineering dept ME-10 workstations. I've used LInux Ubuntu, Mint, Manjaro, Fedora, Zorin, Android-x86, elementary os, etc, etc. I currently have a couple of Android phones and tablet. I really enjoy using those. I also have an old Iphone 4 that will only use IOS 7. In my limited experience with Apple, I don't really like its closed, confining aspects. I am currently trying out Cub Linux (Chromebook clone) and CloudReady (Chrombook clone) operating systems. I enjoy them so much, I just purchased a used Dell Chromebox 3010. So I've gone from complicated operating systems to simple. I really enjoy just surfing the net on Chrome OS.
Man, I miss my C-64... I had the perfect set-up: twin drives, even the Commodore monitor which was better than any television monitor. I was well-versed in the Disk Operating system, and rewrote my utilities to take advantage of the second drive. Wore out a few joysticks playing Impossible Mission, though I spent a lot of quality time with Agent USA as well...
Well if the purpose is just to surf the net why not use a nintendo, or linux w/o any desktop environment on it? Just set Vivaldi/Opera, whatever as the program that starts when X starts, and you will get a system even simpler than any Chromeos apeing OS. People needs "complicate" OSes because needs to do "complicate" things.
Why is it necessary to have a "put down" attitude about other people's computing choices or needs? Is it the need to feel superior to someone else? Well hey, thanks for the helpful advice, I'm sure it was given with the best of intentions.
I'm putting down nothing. But subtly you did. Your subtitled message would sound, more ore less, like "guys you are a bunch of /-*/-*, wasting your time to learn how to manage an OS. I, the genius, discovered something that works like a blender. I push a button and it turns on." Isn't it? Steve Jobs would be proud of you.
Seems like you are reading a little too much into an out-of-context quote. Particularly when preceding the comment you had excerpted, Antilope outlined a pretty damn impressive resume of computer skills. I especially like the part where he says he doesn't like the "closed, confining aspects" of Apple. Let's keep things friendly in here. Wish I had screen shots of my custom Windows Start buttons for you... that was a special hack. Here's a screenshot of my current KDE desktop. Not much to see: dark theme, moved things around a bit, four virtual desktops with different wallpapers and widgets on each. Ctrl+ arrow rotates through the desktops in a cube. This one is a dynamic wallpaper, so if you watch it, the design changes over time.
As typical I had to go and open my mouth about how good Linux is I have a MSI GT72 laptop with all the bells and whistles. It can pre-installed with Windows 10, and because I couldn't be stuffed with the whole process of creating a separate partition on it, I just used a spare 250GB Intel SSD via USB for Linux. Worked a treat, except I couldn't get ethernet to work, and had to use an external USB wireless receiver. No biggie I guess. Seeing as this laptop had a spare couple of M.2 SSD slots inside I went out and got a nice Samsung M.2 EVO 250GB SSD for a spare slot to put Linux on. Installed Linux Mint 17.3 and its works fine. Except again, no ethernet, only wireless. Doing some searching I need to install some drivers e2400 or something like that? Also I updated the kernel to 4.4 LTS stable, but that just leaves me with a blank screen ... Then I came across some info about APTIK - a program that can clone your Linux system, and then transfer it over to a different install. So I figured I'd Aptik my 250GB SSD Linux install, to my new M.2 250GB inside the laptop, and I wouldn't need to start this new 17.3 version from scratch. Nothing is working. I've tried it half a dozen times and bupkis. Meh, I dunno what the go is here, but for some simple things like ethernet and transferring a previous install to new hardware is proving to be a right pain in the ass. Well that's my bitch and moan for the day ....
In the final analysis, the way I see it is every OS is just the focus of another aggravating computer. They all have quirks and at one point every OS I've worked with seem to do something unexpected sooner or later. About all I can tell anybody is to hope for the best, plan for the worst and have multiple paths for recovery when that little unexpected gotcha rears its ugly head.
Any decent Linux distro leaves the old kernel as a fallback in the boot manager, on each kernel upgrade. It's a basic and obvious security measure. The kernel is never replaced unless you do so explicitly, when you really know what are you doing. I'm sure you didn't bother to google a bit or to look at your grub when linux started. In short don't try to sell user's lack of knowledge or laziness as a linux problem.
Not sure if you got what I meant. I mean that a simple apt-get upgrade (should take care of any kernel upgrade and all the related actions). Instead If you install a precooked kernel manually you should avoid to use the "upgrade" statement (upgrade = install new+remove old), just use "install" When your newer kernel proved to be stable and problem free, you can remove the old
Guys. lets not get our panties in a knot... upgrading kernel has to be dual (Grub Customizer is good for this) One has to have the option of the previous kernel in Grub whilst testing the newer one... No need to apt-get. Installing kernels on Ubuntu can be done via deb or with Mint's update manager.