Using Linux

I handle my retirement a bit differently than most members here.

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...mpster-divers/

If it was not for cheap used chromebooks. My computer purchases would be nill.

Originally Posted by swissfella Hi Mike Actually, my current situation would best be described as "semi-retired". The situation I face is a) buying a used, recent model iMac with all the potential hazards that this involves or b) a new, but low-cost, Windows 10 computer shop box with all the REAL hazards that come with Microsoft's claimed Windows upgrades. The other options are c) a new iMac, which I can't justify pricewise or d) a not-too-old, but used Windows box costing almost zero from a website auction site. The dilemma here is what makes me take slightly more interest in the cobwebbed Windows pcs left behind by my kids when they left the nest (I have their permission to delete all contents if found). My son (in San Francisco) has already pointed me in the direction of ElementaryOS, so I'll probably start with that in one of these old Windows pcs that I have access to. One thought that keeps rearing its head is "Why are new brand-new Linux pcs just as expensive as Windows 10 pcs if the OS is free and setting them up is so easy?" It isn't a volume issue as the situation is the same at big box shifters as well as at my local pcs and parts emporium. I reckon that new Linux pcs should be half the price currently being demanded, but my own cynicism tells me that the aim of this is to deflect pc buyers in the direction of Windows, where there is money to be had in "repairing" Windows updates. MFS

Most Linux OEMs are pretty small and need to charge more than big box suppliers to continue operating. As I recall, Windows OEM licenses are afforded in bulk and don't add as much cost to a computer on a manufacturing basis as they would if purchased by an individual, so Linux isn't saving OEMs that much money anyway.
As has been suggested, if you're upset about Linux OEM costs, build your own computer. It's cheaper, more reliable and customizable, and if you're semi-retired, my guess is that you can find the time (of course, I don't know you personally, so perhaps not).

Originally Posted by rokytnji I handle my retirement a bit differently than most members here. https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...mpster-divers/ If it was not for cheap used chromebooks. My computer purchases would be nill.

My kind of group...just joined it, although looks like activity is pretty low.

Granted I will be getting a "newer" laptop in the coming months, I still plan to keep the old ones going. Most all of my hardware now is hand me downs from the wife/family OR retired stuff from where I work at.

I don't understand. If you are succesfully using Mac OS to drive reveune then why are you asking about Linux?

Originally Posted by swissfella One thought that keeps rearing its head is "Why are new brand-new Linux pcs just as expensive as Windows 10 pcs if the OS is free and setting them up is so easy?" It isn't a volume issue as the situation is the same at big box shifters as well as at my local pcs and parts emporium. I reckon that new Linux pcs should be half the price currently being demanded, but my own cynicism tells me that the aim of this is to deflect pc buyers in the direction of Windows, where there is money to be had in "repairing" Windows updates.

I always thought it was a volume thing. If you move 10000 Windows PC's you can make then cheaper than if you move 20 Linux PC's with comparable overhead. The inner parts are mostly just the same, as illustrated by the fact that most laptops run fine with Linux instead of Windows. However other things might adjust pricing, like

1. bloatware paying part of the Windows license
2. Windows volume licenses much cheaper than retail licenses (currently a Windows 10 Professional OEM license sells online for € 13.95 - that's about $ 15 at the local game license shop including margin for the shop)
3. Microsoft contracts probably forcing manufacturers not to sell PC's with Linux for less

In all it might be that by putting bloatware on their PC's OEM manufacturers are compelled to and might even profit from putting software including Windows 10 on their hardware. A bit like Android being free to manufacturers but users being sucked bone dry on their personal data.

As always there's no such thing as a free lunch.

However if you put your own time in the equation, the bottom line might just lean towards using Linux because:

1. If you buy a new Windows PC the moment you turn it on, it just works. BUT then you'll have to spend a whole day installing anti virus, updating all kinds of drivers, getting rid of nagging bloatware. Not so much in Linux: once you install it and you do a quick update once, it is done
2. With Linux, your workflow will not be disrupted by a rebooting Windows installer or on boot, that blue screen telling me that it needs to do only 412 more updates..
3. With Windows you can put files anywhere. This means you'll have to search everywhere to find those files again as well. In Linux, you can always find all your data files in your /home subdirectory. You can still make a mess but it will be confined to that space.

Using your kids' PC's is a perfect training ground to get up to speed with Linux. Coming from OSX you might feel quickly at /home

Originally Posted by 273 I don't understand. If you are successfully using Mac OS to drive revenue, then why are you asking about Linux?

Hi there

Simply because my 2011/2012 iMac can't be upgraded beyond High Sierra - the internals have apparently been changed, so I'm stuck. Since I know my OS won't get any better and since the HD is very slow, I thought it might be time to peer over the fence at an alternative that wouldn't cost 2K ($, £, €) and more. I won't be peering into any windows as mentioned (pun intended).

That's all.

MFS

Originally Posted by swissfella I thought it might be time to peer over the fence at an alternative that wouldn't cost 2K ($, £, €) and more.

It wouldn't cost any money to replace your 2011/2012 Mac's current Mac OS with Linux. My mid-2007 iMac has El Capitan and multiple Linux versions.

Originally Posted by mrmazda It wouldn't cost any money to replace your 2011/2012 Mac's current Mac OS with Linux. My mid-2007 iMac has El Capitan and multiple Linux versions.

Yes, that has occurred to me, but I would still have that old HD. It would be useful to keep the iMac in the background to handle anything unforeseen.

Regards

MFS

swissfella,

Originally Posted by swissfella It would be useful to keep the iMac in the background to handle anything unforeseen.

I completely agree.

Plenty of used HP desktops available with Linux-friendly Intel wifi etc like this Pavilion 570-P026:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Z5L89AAR...AAAOSwCL9d-qwK

Originally Posted by swissfella It would be useful to keep the iMac in the background to handle anything unforeseen.

Sensible. I do the same..

I get where you're coming from. Long-time professional Mac user (since 1986) and fairly long-time Linux hobbyist (since 1999). I get paid to use a Mac 8 hours a day, five days a week, and have a 2014 iMac at home, which I use for the usual daily stuff as well as our home-based small business. I also have a Linux laptop and a desktop at home. On those I run Arch with the Gnome desktop. I DON'T recommend Arch for you, but I do recommend the Gnome desktop; it is simple, fairly logical, stable, and stays out of your way, unlike (in my opinion) KDE Plasma, which is overwrought and unnecessarily complicated, with WAY too many options for the average user.

I will personally never purchase a new Mac again. Right now, I am tied to the Adobe suite of apps (InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat), but I am experimenting with the Linux alternatives (Scribus, GIMP, Inkscape). There are plenty of good alternatives for everything else on Linux.

I would recommend getting either a new Dell workstation with Ubuntu (previously link to), or a decent used system on ebay, and installing Ubuntu.

Originally Posted by JWJones I get where you're coming from. Long-time professional Mac user (since 1986) and fairly long-time Linux hobbyist (since 1999). I get paid to use a Mac 8 hours a day, five days a week, and have a 2014 iMac at home, which I use for the usual daily stuff as well as our home-based small business. I also have a Linux laptop and a desktop at home. On those I run Arch with the Gnome desktop. I DON'T recommend Arch for you, but I do recommend the Gnome desktop; it is simple, fairly logical, stable, and stays out of your way, unlike (in my opinion) KDE Plasma, which is overwrought and unnecessarily complicated, with WAY too many options for the average user.

It's not as though GNOME and Plasma are the only options. If Plasma's configurability isn't your style, you don't have to migrate to GNOME, which is just as (if not more) bloated and is somewhat unfamiliar to new users. MATE and Fluxbox are excellent and Cinnamon is familiar - these and more are all perfectly valid choices for an interface (though a new user may find Fluxbox a bit too minimalistic at first).

Originally Posted by andigena It's not as though GNOME and Plasma are the only options. If Plasma's configurability isn't your style, you don't have to migrate to GNOME, which is just as (if not more) bloated and is somewhat unfamiliar to new users. MATE and Fluxbox are excellent and Cinnamon is familiar - these and more are all perfectly valid choices for an interface (though a new user may find Fluxbox a bit too minimalistic at first).

I do appreciate that KDE is very good these days on resources compared to Gnome, but the OP is concerned with USING his computer, not staring at htop obsessing over resource usage. He's coming from a Mac, after all . With 3.34, Gnome is very fast on newer systems (especially with Arch). You can learn to use the basics of Gnome in half an hour. Everything else you mentioned is lacking in one way or another, except Cinnamon, for the most part. For the OP, I wouldn't even consider fluxbox as an option; I don't think he probably wants to edit text files to arrive at a decently functional system.

Having said the above, I readily admit that I am very OCD when it comes to operating systems and desktop environments, and have a fairly high level of GUI interface expectations, as a long-time macOS user. I also value simplicity and clarity (why the hell does anybody name a file manager "Dolphin"?). I just wish Macs and the macOS weren't so overpriced, slow, proprietary, and increasingly (in the post-Jobs era) jumping-the-shark.

Originally Posted by JWJones I do appreciate that KDE is very good these days on resources compared to Gnome, but the OP is concerned with USING his computer, not staring at htop obsessing over resource usage. He's coming from a Mac, after all . With 3.34, Gnome is very fast on newer systems (especially with Arch). You can learn to use the basics of Gnome in half an hour. Everything else you mentioned is lacking in one way or another, except Cinnamon, for the most part. For the OP, I wouldn't even consider fluxbox as an option; I don't think he probably wants to edit text files to arrive at a decently functional system.

I'm curious as to how you think MATE is lacking. I think it is somewhat lacking personally as a KDE (primarily) user due to its relative lack of configuration options, although its default configuration is pretty good. But since you don't appear to like complex configuration tools, I'm not sure what issue you'd have with it. Mind elaborating?

Fluxbox doesn't really need to have text files be edited to be functional per se and the config files are pretty easy to get the hang of, but I do understand that it might be off-putting to someone new to Linux, which is why I added that little side note at the end. At the very least, having to go to the desktop by default to reach an application menu is not ideal for most users, including myself (I just edited the configuration to add a menu button on the panel).

Having said the above, I readily admit that I am very OCD when it comes to operating systems and desktop environments, and have a fairly high level of GUI interface expectations, as a long-time macOS user. I also value simplicity and clarity (why the hell does anybody name a file manager "Dolphin"?). I just wish Macs and the macOS weren't so overpriced, slow, and increasingly (in the post-Jobs era) jumping-the-shark.

I think you and I have differing definitions of simplicity if you consider Aqua to meet your criteria, but that's fine.
At any rate, I do see how someone who's used to a lot of default eye candy and minimal configuration would dislike the style of KDE or particularly Fluxbox, so that's reasonable. I think a good suggestion for the OP would be Pantheon, Elementary's DE, because it's very similar to Aqua -- more so than GNOME is by default, certainly. I'd just say they should take a bit of time to try out a few and see what allows them to be the most productive, because it will differ by person.

Originally Posted by andigena I'm curious as to how you think MATE is lacking. I think it is somewhat lacking personally as a KDE (primarily) user due to its relative lack of configuration options, although its default configuration is pretty good. But since you don't appear to like complex configuration tools, I'm not sure what issue you'd have with it. Mind elaborating? I think you and I have differing definitions of simplicity if you consider Aqua to meet your criteria, but that's fine. At any rate, I do see how someone who's used to a lot of default eye candy and minimal configuration would dislike the style of KDE or particularly Fluxbox, so that's reasonable. I think a good suggestion for the OP would be Pantheon, Elementary's DE, because it's very similar to Aqua -- more so than GNOME is by default, certainly. I'd just say they should take a bit of time to try out a few and see what allows them to be the most productive, because it will differ by person.

MATE can be made to look/function well, but OOTB it is, frankly, kinda janky. Two panels as default is silly, in my opinion. But I guess one could argue that a panel and a dock is effectively two things taking up screen real estate. Whatever. But again, I think the average user coming from Mac/Win would take one look at MATE and declare "Hey, the 90s called, and they want their interface back!"

Yes, I agree, Elementary/Pantheon would be a good option for the OP to check out, in addition to Ubuntu and Mint.