What is a good x86 Linux OS similar to the Pyra to get familiar with?


I disagree.
I find the very idea of making a system "beginner friendly" (whatever that means) a flawed concept. There is nothing wrong with being a beginner, but the beginner should have the ambition to become sufficently advanced. There is nothing wrong with taking him by the hand but he should walk on his own feet. This means, the system shouldn't be dumbed-down. Instead the beginner should learn how to use it properly. And properly using a unixoid system means to get familiar with shells.
Disagreed, because what Linux savvy people often forget (due to a certain egocentrism, no offense) is the fact, that most people aren't spending as much time in front of a PC and may have completely different priorities and hobbies.
As an example: I'm an artisan that likes making music (accoustic), reading books, watching movies and playing video games, but I also dislike DRM and spyware, so a user friendly experience is still important for me and as soon as one needs to use the terminal, something isn't user friendly anymore. I only use the terminal if I absolutely have to since I already have to learn so many things in my life which have nothing to do with computers at all, which is why I like Synaptic so much.
By now I know my way around in a user friendly Linux system and that's about it but most people wouldn't even understand what is being talked about here at all.
I like you guys and computer science can be a lot of fun, but sometimes trying to see through an entirely different perspective would help.
After all, people are born illiterate, but we don't design our society to work without text - we teach children how to read. Nobody starts as a good car driver, but instead of making our streets look like bumper car courts we have people go through driving schools.
In order to drive a car, you only need to learn how to drive it but not how to disassemble, repair, modify and reassemble it again although it's always great to really know your stuff if you have the time.
Like cars in many areas, computers are a necessity for everyone by now so this is actually a good comparison imho.
BTW: I don't expect every musician to be able to build the instrument he is playing just because I can.

That said, I think the Pandora did a great job in being user friendly while still being versatile, it literally made me use Linux everywhere by now.

Making Linux more open to the world will make the world more open towards Linux.
Things only go downhill if you lock something down and prevent modifications but this hasn't much to do with user friendlyness.

In the end you must ask yourself what you really want.
Do you want Linux to be exclusive to a small elite or do you want to see less Windoze around in general, because you won't make an army of computer scientists out of everybody.
 
Last edited:
I disagree.
I find the very idea of making a system "beginner friendly" (whatever that means) a flawed concept. There is nothing wrong with being a beginner, but the beginner should have the ambition to become sufficently advanced. There is nothing wrong with taking him by the hand but he should walk on his own feet. This means, the system shouldn't be dumbed-down. Instead the beginner should learn how to use it properly. And properly using a unixoid system means to get familiar with shells.

It's really not that hard to get the best of both worlds; this is what I love most about Linux. Have a system that looks nice, and is easy to get up and running with, and as is the case with any good Linux-based system, it should be also easy and quick to get your hands dirty. The tools are available to have both.

Saying that it shouldn't be "beginner friendly" is both elitist and counter-productive if we want to encourage new enthusiasts.

tl;dr there's a difference between "dumbed down" and "locked down". This ain't Windows or Mac.
 
^ Exactly!

Something that is easy to get into and gives you the possibilities (but is not forcing you) to really get inside it and customize/optimize every bit is the best case.
 
I consider switching to Debian at some point.
Where's the difference to Mint (since it's also Debian based)?

There are several versions of Mint based on the DE choice - BUT, there is also a version of Mint called "Mint Debian Edition". ONLY the Mint Debian Edition is truly based on Debian. The rest are based on Ubuntu, which in turn IS based on Debian, but modifies it considerably.

Debian is friendly enough for novices BUT retains several power user capabilities that are stripped out of Ubuntu (and thus most Mint flavors). An example of this is in being able to set up and boot from a RAID array. In Debian I can set up one or more multi volume arrays during the installation step and install to it. I tried very hard to do this in Mint and Mint Debian Edition, but the needed functionality is simply gone from the downloadable images on Mint. Another example is system updates. With Mint, I have never had a version upgrade work - I always ended up having to dump the install and start over with the new release. With Debian, I have never had a version upgrade fail. Debian stable is just that - stable. Updates and releases generally work the first time.

The 'pretty' that Ubuntu and Mint do to Debian isn't worth the instability. To my knowledge, there isn't anything that you can do from Ubuntu or Mint that you can't do with Debian. However, there is a lot that I do in Debian that doesn't work or doesn't work smoothly in Ubuntu/Mint. I see Debian as a 'serious' OS where Ubuntu and Mint are more like 'hold my beer and check this out' OS.
 
Disagreed, because what Linux savvy people often forget (due to a certain egocentrism, no offense) is the fact, that most people aren't spending as much time in front of a PC and may have completely different priorities and hobbies.
I think you misunderstand me. Trust me, I'm not forgetting that. My own mother is one of the most computer-illiterate persons I've ever encountered.

I only use the terminal if I absolutely have to since I already have to learn so many things in my life which have nothing to do with computers at all, which is why I like Synaptic so much.
That's perfectly fine. Synaptic is a standard tool of Debian. Using it is the way Debian is supossed to work. But even if you don't like using the terminal, you know how to do it if you have to. So in one of the rare cases where Synaptic swallows up on something you know how to help yourself. That's all I expect.

In order to drive a car, you only need to learn how to drive it but not how to disassemble, repair, modify and reassemble it again although it's always great to really know your stuff if you have the time.
But you have to know how to drive it safely. That's why you went to driving school. All I ask of you as a computer user is to know how to run your system safely, i.e. how and why to run security updates and not to fall for the basic tricks that make users compromise their own system.
I believe that should include very basic repairs like changing a tire or reacting adequately to security warnings, but I'm not entirely sure if I'm already expecting too much here.
What I'm definitely not expecting of you is to know how to assemble a motor or compile a kernel. That's what workshops or distributors are for.

In the end you must ask yourself what you really want.
Do you want Linux to be exclusive to a small elite or do you want to see less Windoze around in general, because you won't make an army of computer scientists out of everybody.
If this question is directed at me then my answer is: "I don't care."
Linux is not a commercial product, so there is no economic reason to spread it. Spreading Linux is all about ego, and that's nothing I'm after.

Saying that it shouldn't be "beginner friendly" is both elitist and counter-productive if we want to encourage new enthusiasts.
I would agree, if there wasn't already a major problem within the term of "beginner friendly".
There is no clear definition of that term. Most people associate it with "works like an inexperienced Windows user expects", but I think this is a poor measure.

... wait a moment ...

I'm just realizing, that I'm basically reciting "Linux is not Windows" [1] here. So instead of dragging this post even longer, I would like to just point you there, if you're willing to overlook the flaws in the text that are there because it's in parts outdated.


[1] http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
 
Linux is not a commercial product, so there is no economic reason to spread it. Spreading Linux is all about ego, and that's nothing I'm after.
Spreading Linux for me is all about being actually considered when it comes to drivers (especcially for GFX cards), game ports, etc...
Most commercial software is closed source and has no Linux port because the makers don't see a market here and a lot of OpenSource software hasn't got a compiled version for Linux Desktops because too few people expect more or less average people to use Linux at all. I think this is unfortunate.
 
I would agree, if there wasn't already a major problem within the term of "beginner friendly".
There is no clear definition of that term. Most people associate it with "works like an inexperienced Windows user expects", but I think this is a poor measure

You're creating a problem that doesn't exist. "Beginner friendly" is nothing more than the expression implies: i.e. intuitive to an inexperienced user.

Do you really think Android became popular because it's "similar to Windows"? Or is it that it's simply easy to use? It's the same principle that made all GUIs accessible (like Amiga OS, for one). Blithly comparing everything to Windows doesn't say anything about Windows being the "golden standard" in beginner-level OS (actually, it isn't), but more an modern indoctrination that's so ingrained in certain minds, that they simply cannot understand that any other system cannot be intuitive without being the same.
 
Where's the difference to Mint (since it's also Debian based)?
Grench gave a good view. I would like to complement it:
Across all distro's you have a different desktop environment. All with different filemanagers.
KDE has Dolphin (they dropped Konqueror). Genome has nautilus, from which Caja is derived, used in Mate, while Cinnamon uses Nemo. We have oldies like pcmanfm and weird ones like spacefm (and a lot of textmode filemanagers...). oh, and I almost forgot thunar.
These give a small personality touch to each Linux distribution (and there are more options: top/side/bottom bar, popups on top or bottom, extra (and important) goodies like networkmanagers, etc...). For people that do not drop to bash... its important.
Also: repositories are not the same: the software you can find is different (almost the same, but sometimes a software is only on one distro). If you start adding repositories (because you can)... then things can get incompatible (depending on what you chose)...

Also important: Debian philosophy is to install stuff DISABLED (requires manual enablement of things), and Mint's philosophy is to install stuff ENABLED (more functionality out of the box, but slightly less secure). In Fedora, for example, if you install a new server, you have to manually modify the firewall to allow it to broadcast. (while other distros do this for you...)
[doublepost=1478117585,1478117039][/doublepost]
software hasn't got a compiled version for Linux
Well... there IS this problem with Linux: You compile the software, and with the next kernel upgrade, it STOPS working (like ZXDX on the Pandy). Windows excels in that it remains (fairly) compatible with old software from Windows95 (like Wine). If you take an old ELF compiled exe, it depends on so many .so's that have been updated, and chances are it does not run. (unless you are Loki, and pack every dependency inside, big files for maximum compatibility). Gentoo people will not see a problem with this (Gentoo compiles everything on the fly) but static systems... urgh...
 
Does mint let you play MP3 files out of the box? Because last time I used Debian I had to add a repo and install a specific package I think. Those are steps that you should be comfortable with if you're using a modern Linux but adding and removing repos is not a common operation. And then there's Adobe Flash.
 
Spreading Linux for me is all about being actually considered when it comes to drivers (especcially for GFX cards), game ports, etc...
I can't say anything about games, but the problem with GFX drivers only exists with the ones that are not open.
My personal take on this is just to ignore those. If someone doesn't want me to look at his sources then I don't want to buy his products.

Most commercial software is closed source and has no Linux port because the makers don't see a market here
That problem doesn't affect me. I know it affects others, but I'm in the comfortable position of not having to care about that.

and a lot of OpenSource software hasn't got a compiled version for Linux Desktops because too few people expect more or less average people to use Linux at all.
While it is certainly true that such software exists, I believe "a lot of" is an exaggeration.
I believe if one were to make a list of OSS that runs under Linux, you'll find most of it in the Debian repo.

I think this is unfortunate.
Yes, it is. But you can always ask your distributor to package any software you're missing. I won't pretend that this will always work, but if you make a good point, there are chances that you can install this software with the next release of your distribution. For example in Debian, you could send a "request for package" (RFP) bug report for the software you want to have included.


You're creating a problem that doesn't exist. "Beginner friendly" is nothing more than the expression implies: i.e. intuitive to an inexperienced user.
The term "intuitive to an inexperienced user" fails in three ways to define what "beginner friendly" might mean:
1. There is no definition of what "intuitive" would mean.
2. There is no definition of what constitutes an "inexperienced user".
3. Even if 1 and 2 were defined, the attempt of addressing the issue wouldn't necessarily lead to a "good" solution. (I'd like to refer to the "training wheel" example in LNW#5b here.)

Do you really think Android became popular because it's "similar to Windows"?
Android as a mobile phone OS is a totally different story than Windows as a Desktop OS. The WIMP paradigm just doesn't work well on mobile phones. And people see that.
On desktop computers however, WIMP is the dominant paradigm, and Windows pretty much set's the de-facto standard for this, simply due to it's market share. This however doesn't automatically mean, that WIMP is always the optimal solution.

Well... there IS this problem with Linux: You compile the software, and with the next kernel upgrade, it STOPS working
This is why dkms was invented.

Does mint let you play MP3 files out of the box? Because last time I used Debian I had to add a repo and install a specific package I think.
Mint does and so does Debian. And it hasn't been any other way in Debian during the last 10 years (iirc; maybe you hat to "apt-get install foo" 10 years ago, but this is where I get back to the "basic understanding of how the system works" that I expect of beginners).
The problems with mp3 lie within software patents, not within licenses. Debian doesn't really care about software patents. They don't like them, but from a technical POV they only care for the freedom of licenses.
 
Spreading Linux for me is all about being actually considered when it comes to drivers (especcially for GFX cards), game ports, etc...
Most commercial software is closed source and has no Linux port because the makers don't see a market here and a lot of OpenSource software hasn't got a compiled version for Linux Desktops because too few people expect more or less average people to use Linux at all. I think this is unfortunate.

Libre or Open Source software being avalaible, depends on the distro you use, how many maintaners they have, how many free time they have, and if they know, care about that program or library.

I only have 100 packages on the repo, but i know some maintainers on Linux distros, that anyone uses, that take care of 300, 500 or more.

On Antergos or any other rolling release distro, there are more packages avalaible, and with GUIs like Pamac or Octopi is easy to maintain, like using Synaptic.

And it would be great to use it on Pyra, but Debian seems a reasonable choice, unless we suddenly have a lot of people willing to contribute back.

Well... there IS this problem with Linux: You compile the software, and with the next kernel upgrade, it STOPS working (like ZXDX on the Pandy). Windows excels in that it remains (fairly) compatible with old software from Windows95 (like Wine). If you take an old ELF compiled exe, it depends on so many .so's that have been updated, and chances are it does not run. (unless you are Loki, and pack every dependency inside, big files for maximum compatibility). Gentoo people will not see a problem with this (Gentoo compiles everything on the fly) but static systems... urgh...

That's true, most binary or even AUR updates i see on Antergos are recompilations, but 99% of the time, it's libraries that updated their API the ones to blame, not the kernel.

On the commercial side, Valve solved this using Steam Runtime, a set of free and open source libraries that developers can target without worrying about API changing and the like.

Anyway, i would add ZXDX to my TODO list, after updating 10 or more libraries/programs that i have in the queue.
 
Well... there IS this problem with Linux: You compile the software, and with the next kernel upgrade, it STOPS working
Actually, the core userspace interfaces are pretty much written into granite since day one, Torvalds himself would probably snap your neck for even trying to change that. Without specific dependencies you can still execute Linux programs compiled in '91 on any modern distribution. If something really stops working with a different kernel it's usually related to driver-specific issues.

On the commercial side, Valve solved this using Steam Runtime, a set of free and open source libraries that developers can target without worrying about API changing and the like.
"Solved" is an exaggeration, you'll run into tons of issues if you're not using the very same system they took those files from. OpenGL/Vulkan rips a huge hole into the whole concept, because the runtime can't provide those libraries for they are driver-specific, which totally goes haywire if those libraries require dependencies that are newer than what the runtime has to offer... but Valve never cared about giving the few core libraries that cause those issues the special treatment they require.
 
Why limit yourself to the nixes/nuxes if you're that open minded? Try also ReactOS and Haiku (on x86, there's also RISC OS on ARM or an emulator, and AmigaOS on powerPC, I think).
I love Haiku for some reason. I have been playing with it occasionally for a long time. I wish it worked better for me for actually getting things done. It is about time for me to play around again, so I guess I will be downloading/making a VM this weekend.

In the context of 'beginners' though, telling them to go reload their system over and over with multiple OS versions is not practical.
I totally disagree. It is more practical to actually learn what you are doing and how things work across different distros and OSs. Back when I jumped into Linux on my own in 2000 (after a limited amount of exposure in the late 90s) I decided to try installing on a laptop. Things did not go smoothly at all, and I had no clue what I was doing...but I learned. It took years before my installs "just worked", and I did a bit of distro hopping for a while. I was lucky enough to start working with Solaris in 01 so that I could experience the similarities and the differences.

In some introductory OS courses they will have you repeatedly install and learn the basics. The course I took did this with both Windows and Linux, and after that course we did the same again in the courses for each of the OSs. In the intro course, after learning how to properly install each by itself we then had to create multiboot setups. This is not done for the sole purpose of irritating students.

My point is, it may not be fun for most people to reinstall repeatedly (or to have things break our not work), but this is how you learn. If you only use a distro or OS that does most of the decision making for you, and you stick with the defaults and nearly never install or have to do anything technical you stay a newbie for a long time. My evidence for this is all the people that have grown up surrounded by computers in all aspects of their lives, yet can only do basic tasks on their own. With 20+ years of experience many of these people are still beginners. How is that even acceptable?

Disagreed, because what Linux savvy people often forget (due to a certain egocentrism, no offense) is the fact, that most people aren't spending as much time in front of a PC and may have completely different priorities and hobbies.
Priorities and hobbies are irrelevant when trying to learn to use something new. Your average first world five year old has more exposure to computers in a month than I did in a year up until my late teens, and I would seek out computers that I could use (I wasn't permitted to use the one we had at home very often). The young adults of today should far exceed my knowledge at the same age based on experience alone, yet very few do. While part of this is due to dumbed down interfaces, the big problem is that rather than trying to figure things out on their own they let others do the thinking for them. Why do people pay to let others do a reinstall for them? This is like that person stuck on the side of the road because they don't know how to change a tire (I kinda got lucky, as my father made me do all maintenance on my car, and I had to learn how to do things that one wouldn't normally have to do...your average person may not need to do all that, but they should at least know how to safely and correctly put the donut on). I see that sulu also mentioned changing tires. We are both saying that there is a requirement for basic knowledge and skills that go along with many everyday things.



Call me elitist if you feel it fits. If you want to use a computer, learn how to do it under normal circumstances and how to do tasks that you need to with OSs you are likely to encounter (why hasn't Apple been mentioned yet?). Otherwise keep using Android and such.
 
Torvalds himself would probably snap your neck
bear-neck-snap-o.gif
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4126926/bear-neck-snap-o.gif)

true, quoting @canseco : it's libraries that updated their API the ones to blame, not the kernel.
Its just that dev's tend to release their newest stuff together with .. no, wait...
Debian has these 3 repositories UNSTABLE - TESTING - STABLE (pun related to ponies intended). Only those software packages that are good enough make it to the next level.
it's Debian that tends to move stuff from unstable to testing in a big updatefest when a new kernel arrives (which tends to be compiled with yet a new version of gcc).
And you get new shiny things, but also broken things (which get patched fast, but sometimes, nobody cares that I need to drop to commandline to run padsp rhythmbox or I can not use audio in other programs (a wrapper takes care of that now))

As for the stuff you always expect to have, but sometimes production machines are missing (bangs head on wall):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base
 
Last edited:
1. There is no definition of what "<insert word here>" would mean.
...attempt of addressing the issue wouldn't necessarily lead to a "good" solution. (I'd like to refer to the "training wheel" example in LNW#5b here.)

Firstly, words do have very strict and unambiguous meanings; that's what a dictionary is for. Sarcasm aside, though...

It is true that there are many levels of "beginner" and there are differences in what makes an interface "intuitive" for a given purpose and for a given individual.

The truth is that people learn in different ways, and not everyone has the same end-goal. Also, in relation to learning - push some people in at the deep end, and they struggle and fight and perhaps excel quickly - others might struggle and drown, but if they are given enough encouragement and support they can also learn how to excel, and along the way, learn those necessary tools that few people find instinctively.

So yes, that "good" solution may not be an easy concept in theory, but the Raspberry Pi I think proved that it's eminently possible.

Having said that...


the big problem is that rather than trying to figure things out on their own they let others do the thinking for them.

I can't remember where, but I remember someone saying that "smart phones create a new level of stupid" - unfortunately things are about to turn a whole lot worse with the whole current trends in AI and AI-enhanced personal assistants. We seem to be fast approaching a world in which computers will excel in intelligence and reasoning powers that, increasingly, people will lack the motivation or interest in exceeding. Scary.

"Ok Google, how do I wipe my own arse?"
 
it's Debian that tends to move stuff from unstable to testing in a big updatefest when a new kernel arrives (which tends to be compiled with yet a new version of gcc).
And you get new shiny things, but also broken things (which get patched fast, but sometimes, nobody cares that I need to drop to commandline to run padsp rhythmbox or I can not use audio in other programs (a wrapper takes care of that now))
Sounds like you're using Testing. Well, it's called like that for a reason. ;)
You're expected to test the new software that arrived from Unstable (where it spent at least 2 weeks without anyone reporting RC bugs) and report any bugs you find.
If you don't want that, run Stable!


Firstly, words do have very strict and unambiguous meanings; that's what a dictionary is for. Sarcasm aside, though...

It is true that there are many levels of "beginner" and there are differences in what makes an interface "intuitive" for a given purpose and for a given individual.
Do you see the contradiction between those two lines? Obviously there is no unambiguous definition of "intuitive" and "inexperienced" that any dev could work with. So everyone has to make things up according to their own understanding of the terms.

Also, in relation to learning - push some people in at the deep end,
I didn't say anything about pushing someone. I said it helped ME, to jump in on my own. It was meant as an encouragement for others to try the same. Now it's up to them to decide if they can learn how to swim that way.
I'm a very lazy person. Maybe that's the reason why I failed with Suse, because it took to much work off me, that I would have needed to learn.

So yes, that "good" solution may not be an easy concept in theory, but the Raspberry Pi I think proved that it's eminently possible.
I'm not sure about the later versions, but I think the SoC choice for the RPi1 (which started the hype) was a very poor one. I believe its missing Debian/armhf support hindered an even better solution.
 
The young adults of today should far exceed my knowledge at the same age based on experience alone, yet very few do. While part of this is due to dumbed down interfaces, the big problem is that rather than trying to figure things out on their own they let others do the thinking for them. Why do people pay to let others do a reinstall for them? This is like that person stuck on the side of the road because they don't know how to change a tire[...]
Imho that has something to do with locked down systems that make it deliberately difficult to repair and modify your stuff. The big companies want that people are depending on them (Apple stores being the prime example). If you make fresh installs extra difficult by having to call the company so that they unlock your system (Windows), glue the battery inside a device (nearly every smartphone), make a lot of bloat- and spyware uninstallable by default (Android, iOS, Win10) and prevent access even to only the fringes of the core system, you're discouraged from tinkering with your stuff since you have to first hack it, lose any warranty and probably even break some license agreement.
Imagine having to do all this stuff when your car breaks... oh wait, Renault... it's already happening.

Independent people are extremely bad customers and we're practically all living in profit driven societies, so there you have the results.
 
Last edited:
I can't remember where, but I remember someone saying that "smart phones create a new level of stupid" - unfortunately things are about to turn a whole lot worse with the whole current trends in AI and AI-enhanced personal assistants. We seem to be fast approaching a world in which computers will excel in intelligence and reasoning powers that, increasingly, people will lack the motivation or interest in exceeding. Scary.

"Ok Google, how do I wipe my own arse?"

well, it may be even worse than that... "Ok Google, wipe my @ss." But that will turn into Google doing it for you, without your asking...

there was a hackaday article about AI, and how it's headed in the wrong direction. i think the article started off with something great and then got to the wrong conclusion... AI is meant to be a brain assistor, but let's see about how to make it build up our brain instead of just relying on AI.

for example: i see this most with people on smart phones with their maps -- one of my siblings was using it constantly for a retreat that we were on, even though (to me) the roads were starting to get familiar. (we weren't there long, and i may have had trouble by memory anyway, in their defense, but...) wouldn't it be cool to start saying things like, in neighborhoods that you frequent: "Do you remember the next turn?" "Yes." "Ok, I'll be quiet then." And then if you miss the turn, it can tell you, or if there's an alternate (less fast) way to get there, it will stay quiet until you miss that turn, and then it will start to say, "Oops, that was it! Let's make a U-turn and take a right on Pickle-dilly way."

Additionally, on freeways, say, "Take the I-15 N in 3 miles." Don't say, "Get in the far right lane, or left lane" (in case the highway is a bit complicated), try to get the driver to be aware of the road and the signs. "Did you see the sign for the I-15 North, and which side you need to be on?" "No." "Ok, no problem, it's a right exit."

It's like a brain assist, but it's there to build up your awareness and abilities, not make the driving situation completely mindless. some people like that, but i want my mind engaged... I usually tell my co-pilot to silence the smartphone, and just tell me the next thing...
 
I totally disagree. It is more practical to actually learn what you are doing and how things work across different distros and OSs. Back when I jumped into Linux on my own in 2000 (after a limited amount of exposure in the late 90s) I decided to try installing on a laptop. Things did not go smoothly at all, and I had no clue what I was doing...but I learned. It took years before my installs "just worked", and I did a bit of distro hopping for a while. I was lucky enough to start working with Solaris in 01 so that I could experience the similarities and the differences.

Your objective was to 'Learn Linux'. Admirable as that may be, that is not going to be everyone's goal.

The Pyra could be a fantastic teaching tool for the intricacies of different OS distributions. There will be a lot of Pyra users who simply are not interested in taking that class.

Much like the Pandora, the Pyra will be a viable programming and development environment. Although people into this will likely be able to tweak the OS, THAT isn't their primary objective - they'd just as soon not have to mess with that so that they can create their vision.

There will be a legitimate class of users who's objectives are to surf the web and play a few games. For them, the OS is simply a necessary annoyance that sits between them and their objectives. They have no desire to learn how to do OS changes or maintenance beyond clicking a button somewhere called, "Update OS".

The Pyra could also be a fantastic tool for content creators (artists, musicians, programmers) for whom the OS&DE is simply a means to enable and navigate to the applications that are their actual interest.

The Pyra could also be an always connected office for a sales executive on the run. She has no clue what dd does or what a command line is, but she's a whiz with LibreOffice Impress and Google Docs and loves that she can edit the presentation, while connected via WiFi, on the plane while listening to music and still has room on the tray table for the airline snack box and a soda.

We'll know if the Pyra is truly a success if it sells enough units such that over half of it's audience have no interest in what the OS or DE actually is. They're all, rightly, too busy doing the ends for which an OS and DE and applications are a means.
 
The Pandora was a niche device and I see no reason to assume that the Pyra will be any different. Sure, there will be Windows users without any knowledge about Linux, but I don't see them making up a significant number of the total users.

I disagree.
I find the very idea of making a system "beginner friendly" (whatever that means) a flawed concept. There is nothing wrong with being a beginner, but the beginner should have the ambition to become sufficently advanced. There is nothing wrong with taking him by the hand but he should walk on his own feet. This means, the system shouldn't be dumbed-down. Instead the beginner should learn how to use it properly. And properly using a unixoid system means to get familiar with shells.
After all, people are born illiterate, but we don't design our society to work without text - we teach children how to read. Nobody starts as a good car driver, but instead of making our streets look like bumper car courts we have people go through driving schools.

What I didn't mention when I said I jumped in at the deep end with Debian on my 2nd attempt was, that my 1st attempt was with Suse, which was very popular in Germany back then. Superficially it was pretty close to Windows, but what seemed to be helpful at the beginning turned out to handicap my progress in understanding Linux. After a while I found myself constantly mixing up how things work under Windows and Linux, which was cumbersome on both systems.
With Debian it was a whole different story. It made me understand right from the beginning that I know nothing about it and that I'll have to learn quite some things from scratch if I want to work with this system. What followed was said 6 months of headaches, but when I started to see the whole picture it all felt very natural.
The point is, that beginners should embrace the new system the way it is meant to be, instead of trying to bend it until it looks like their old one.


For me personally, an important feature of Debian is its social contract. [1]
On the technical side, Debian's main advantages over Mint are its sane and stable package base, and its close following of security issues.
The only actual advantage I see in Mint is, that they really put some effort into GUI design.

Other than that there is really no big difference. Debian-based distributions all pretty much work the same, no matter if it's Debian, Ubuntu or some other derivative. If you know how one works under the hood, you can handle any of them.


[1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract
When I first tried using Debian, I couldn't get anything to work at all through the terminal and I was pulling my hair out. But eventually I just found out I was supposed to just add a debian mirror to sources.list and all of the sudden everything was working out and from there I figured most of the OS out.
 
Back
Top