I installed a few different distros, landed on Cinnamon Mint. I'm not a tech dummy, but I feel I'm in over my head.
I installed Docker in the terminal (two things I'm not familiar with) but I can't find it anywhere. Googled some stuff, tried to run stuff, and... I dunno.
I'm TRYING to learn docker so I can set up audiobookshelf and Sonarr with Sabnzbd.
Once it's installed in the terminal, how the hell do I find docker so I can start playing with it?
Is there a Linux for people who are deeply entrenched in how Windows works? I'm not above googling command lines that I can copy and paste but I've spent HOURS trying to figure this out and have gotten no where...
Thanks! Sorry if this is the wrong place for this
EDIT : holy moly. I posted this and went to bed. Didn't quite realize the hornets nest I was going to kick. THANK YOU to everyone who has and is about to comment. It tells you how much traction I usually get because I usually answer every response on lemmy and the former. For this one I don't think I'll be able to do it.
I've got a few little ones so time to sit and work on this is tough (thus 5h last night after they were in bed) but I'm going to start picking at all your suggestions (and anyone else who contributes as well)
Thank you so much everyone! I think windows has taught me to be very visually reliant and yelling into the abyss that is the terminal is a whole different beast - but I'm willing to give it a go!
Being a person who replies to lots of new users questions I strongly disagree. 99% of the questions come from a Windows mindset, so it requires some deconstruction of the way the person is thinking, have you noticed how very few Mac users ask beginner questions on Linux forums?
There's a big difference between something is different and someone is used to doing the things differently, driving on the left or right is just as difficult, bit if you've driven all of your life one way switching up can be difficult. Just like that a lot of Linux concepts are different from what people are used to if they come from a Windows background, but the same is true the other way around. As someone who's been using Linux for decades I find windows weird and convoluted, but I know that this is just my perception, and that someone who's using it daily is used to that.
Edit: if you're going to reply to this, mind providing an example of something you think is easy on Windows but hard on Linux?
Just to be clear, I agree with you practically 100%, and you can see my response to this person in the same thread as well, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I'll give you a few examples of things that are easier on Windows (and most also are easier on MacOS) than they are on Linux (or at least some distros depending on which you pick):
There are probably plenty more, and there are things that are easier on Linux. But again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Each of those examples are less intuitive to complete on Linux (or at least some distros) than they are in Windows. As someone who has been using Linux for a decade, I don't think that they are all hard, but many are also less intuitive in Linux than MacOS, just to address your first point. When you have to start adding PPAs/repos to get specific things, I'd argue that's objectively less intuitive than the alternatives in other operating systems, and not merely a different way of thinking. In many cases though, for most things, there are intuitive solutions that exist in Linux. There are plenty of cases where someone overcomplicates something they want to do in Linux by using a Windows mindset, so I still agree with you there. I just think it's a little more nuanced than you seemed to imply.
I had written a more thorough response, but the app crashed and I lost it. Sorry of this one sounds a bit harsh, I do mostly agree with you, I just think that the examples you've chosen are bad because they're either distro specific (so not a Linux problem but a problem with that distro), or not Linux problems (i.e. there's nothing Linux can do about it because the problem doesn't lie on Linux but elsewhere)
Distro specific. It should be just like installing anything else, and it is for some distros, certainty for the ones I've been using.
Distro specific, I've had NVIDIA drivers auto-updating for the past 15 years or so, long before Windows had that same capabilities. And it updates with my regular system update, no need to use any special GUI for it.
Not Linux problem. Also, while I can see the argument that's easier to use what's already installed, that tells you nothing of how easy one thing is in comparison to the other. If computers came with the most convolutedly complex and unusable crap of an OS, full of bloatware and spyware pre-installed people would still use it. Not to mention that the Linux installation process was much easier than Windows for the longest time (until windows finally implemented automatic driver installation)
Not Linux problem. Although this is something to bear in mind while choosing your OS, it's the companies that make games that are at fault here, there's nothing Linux can do to remedy this situation, so it's unfair to judge it for it. That's like saying Windows is harder to use because running docker containers in it is impossible without some virtualisation, while this is something to consider when deciding what OS will you use to self-host, it's not per-se a reason why Windows is more difficult to use.
Same as above.
Like I said, I agree with lots of what you said, and some of those are thing to keep in mind when choosing an OS, but those are not good arguments as for which OS is simpler than the other. The Linux way to do most of them is using the package manager, and that's much simpler than searching the internet for the correct download.
I do agree with you that these problems are not the fault of Linux, but I never meant to imply that they were. The average PC user has absolutely zero care for where the fault is, the only thing that matters to them as an end user is their experience while using the operating system. Users who actually care about the quality and ethics of the software they use are likely to already be using Linux anyway, but that is very much not the norm. The layperson is perfectly happy to never care or understand a single thing about their operating system. I will be answering your response to each of my points, as well as rebuttals for this:
in the following:
They are pre-installed in Windows. In fact, most people won't even understand why their media isn't playing, and won't even know that they need to install something, or how to install it. Some distros have them pre-installed, but there are plenty that do not. The point here is that it is inherently less intuitive and more difficult in Linux than in Windows.
This doesn't require installing anything in Windows. This is purely easier in Windows for many distributions, and equal at best for those who have them installed by default. Thus using the package manager is not easier or more intuitive in this sense, especially since the packages have strange names (so you'd have to look up how to do it as a new user).
Nvidia's driver software comes pre-installed in a lot of pre-built systems nowadays. It has automatic update checking so it will prompt you on boot to ask if you want to update. Even if it didn't come pre-installed (which is also the case with most Linux distros), Windows users don't have to look up a tutorial on how to download and install the drivers. In Linux, the package names and installation methods vary so greatly between distros, that I still have to look it up every time I set up a new distro, even with a decade of Linux experience. In either case, the user will need to use the Internet to search for a page (either the Nvidia driver site, or a tutorial for how to do it on their distro). And no, I'm not talking about Nouveau here, it still has lots of issues and delivers much worse performance than the proprietary driver. Sure, using an AMD card is easier, but the current market share suggests most people will be coming over with Nvidia hardware.
When all the first results are the Nvidia website with official driver downloads, and don't require the user to use the terminal (and make sure the tutorial works for their distro), Windows is easier there. You just download an executable and run it. No need to add non-free repositories to your package manager, no need to use the terminal, just a search, 4 clicks, and you're done. Yes, it's a very "Windows way to do things", but it's also objectively easier than it is in a variety of Linux distros. A select few distros have a GUI way to manage this, which I'd rate as slightly easier than the manual Windows way, but still more difficult than the "this is already installed on my system" way that's the case for many pre-builts and laptops.
You seem to have answered this for me. People will use what is pre-installed on their system because it is easier for them to do so. Again, not the fault of Linux, but it adds a layer of difficulty to those who want to switch. The layperson doesn't know what an ISO image is, or how to make a liveUSB out of one.
This has nothing to do with using a package manager or the "Linux way to do things".
Most end users will not care whose fault it is. The fact of the matter is that it will dissuade a large portion of gamers away from Linux, as Riot games don't run at all. It's much more difficult to convince someone that they should switch to another operating system when the games they play or programs they use (like Adobe software) won't work. Sure, in many cases there are alternatives, but that's a massive layer of difficulty, especially if you're expecting people to learn new, alternative software with equally steep or steeper learning curves than the Adobe suite, or give up games they've been playing for years.
Again, nothing to do with a package manager or the "Linux way to do things".
Again, the end user doesn't care whose fault it is. If they can't access the features their laptop or PC came with (like the ability to use their discrete GPU), then that's going to be a hard sell. And even if they can by installing something like rog-control-center, that is still another layer of difficulty.
If there is a solution available for a specific computer, it is inherently more difficult on Linux. The computer will come pre-installed with the correct software (no download necessary), and even if you were to reinstall, all you have to do is download a single executable and run it. On Linux, however, you have to research and figure out what kind of software would even do this (asusctl or rog-control-center, for instance), then you have to check the model number of your laptop or motherboard for compatibility because only a select few will be compatible, then you have to add a PPA/repo to your package manager (if the solution even has that available; some will require you to build from source and/or update manually every update), and only then can you install the package. Far more steps, far less intuitive, and far more difficult for an average user.
I gave you examples of things that are more difficult in Linux than Windows. None of these things have to do with a difference in perspective on how to install software, or an investment in the "Windows way" to do things. I've been using Linux for around a decade, and I've had recent experience with each of these things in Windows while helping other people. They are simply easier in Windows. I want to again make it clear that I never said any of these were the fault of Linux, but you can't merely overlook them simply because Linux isn't at fault. New users would still want/have to do these things, and doing them can be difficult or impossible depending on compatibility. There are plenty of arguments for Linux, but the argument that it is simpler or easier in any overarching sense is not one of them. There are very specific instances where things are easier in Linux, or the experience of a user is simpler in Linux, but those few cases do not encompass the entirety of Linux. You have said yourself that you have not used Windows recently, and that seems very apparent to me. I dislike Windows, but Linux has not gotten anywhere near a point where one of my recommendations for switching to Linux are that it is easier or simpler.
I agree that the package manager is a much better solution than the Windows way of doing things, but it has nothing to do with most of the points I made.
The greatest contribution of Nvidia to FOSS had been to keep many such thinking people hostage to proprietary solutions and out of our visibility.
You know, those that refuse to learn anything new, refuse to read documents, believe that by controlling input/output through terminal is inferior to gui-blindness.
@Nibodhika @Para_lyzed
Yes NVIDIA is crap which is why my next GPU will not be NVIDIA. However you need to remember AMD used to be crappier, and the last time I bought a GPU I still didn't trusted AMD.
Also not sure what your answer has to do with the ongoing discussion.
Auto downloading and installing software is pretty much a violation of ethics in the unix ecosystem, pretty much anything that begins with Auto should be rejected.
But the general public wants the convenience and luxury of having things done by others without being bothered. Many distros competing with each other for lazy newcomers (ubuntu, mint, debian, manjaro, ...) they provide all those non-unix like utilities.
Lately it is getting worse, all sorts of telemtry is branded good
@Nibodhika
I assume you're talking about the "auto-update" drivers. That's pretty standard Linux thing, everything "auto" updates when you tell your system to update, that's one of the huge advantages of package managers, not sure which Linux have you used, but the vast majority of them do have a package manager that updates everything (including drivers).
I have never used such a system, I don't know of a single one, and I wouldn't use such a system.
@Nibodhika
Would you mind telling us which obscure Linux distro do you use that doesn't have a package manager? And how do you update your system?
I have used apt apt-get, apk, pacman, xbps, and I have never encountered an auto-update
Even dumb-gui like synaptics or pamac don't auto-update
@Nibodhika
All of those upgrade the drivers when you upgrade your system just like I mentioned.
Then what you consider automatic is a very unique perception of how things work.
In a car automatic transmission means it shifts on its own.
In a non automatic either you shift or it doesn't happen.
On most pkg managers YOU elect when to upgrade, the output is a list of "upgradable" pkgs, then you are asked whether to proceed or not. Nothing automatic about this.
Auto update would mean software has been updated on its own without you authorizing it.
@Nibodhika
No it's not, every sane person considers automatic to have little or no human interaction, but some human interaction to trigger the flow is still a thing, next you'll tell me that an automatic weapon fires on it's own will, or that an automatic garage door decides when to open. A single command that updates all of your system seems pretty automated to me, if not try doing your next update manually by downloading every single package from their source, compiling it if needed, and copying it into the correct folders, do that for every one of the hundreds of packages that get updates and then tell me that a single command is not automating a lot of that away for you.
It doesn't even work how you're describing in Windows, you get prompted whether you want to update there.
It seems you misunderstand what the other commenter meant. By "auto-update", they mean that the package is fetched and updated when you request your package manager to perform an update/upgrade (meaning that the user specifically requested the packages be updated, not that it happened on its own). This comes from my use of the term "auto-updating" in reference to Nvidia drivers on Windows, which will automatically check for updates on boot, in comparison to the closest equivalent with Linux distros in which the drivers would be updated by the package manager (but still do not require the user to manually install a new version separately, as would be the case if trying to use Nvidia's official runfile installer). I grouped the Linux drivers from a package manager into the "auto-update" category, which I realize in hindsight is a bit confusing given the nature of updating through a package manager.