Mac users, how did you find the Linux experience?

[Roxy.music]

I am not liking it because i put it on a bootable flash drive and it wiped out my Mac os i thought it was just on the flash drive Took out the usb and found it had wiped the Mac .I have this on another forum on here ,tried all the options command R etcit goes straight it to Linux.Just got a bootable flash drive of os and it want install it.I suppose the only way to do it is remove the drive from the MAC and delete it.Has anyone else done the same thing as me

 

[MacBH928]

Then don't open a Terminal window. 'sudo rm -rf /' is just as damaging on a Mac as it is on Linux. MacOS lets you shoot your foot off just as easily as Linux does.
.

But on OSX the terminal is an option, I have been using OSX for over a decade and there is absolutely 0 reason to launch the terminal. I only ever launch it to try some stuff off the net.

On Linux, when ever there is troubleshoot or a tutorial, they are not shy of start with "launch the terminal".

So, to me, i look at all that and say... "its useless making that much effort" because you'll do what you want anyway. It's fine mentioning it, but if you gotta make a fuss over how great something is, because your not happy how little traffic you have, then your doing something wrong.

Actually, you do want to preach the use of Linux. Its like creating awareness that there is an option. Windows is too much data collecting and Apple prices is not for everyone. Not encourage people to switch to Linux, is not any different from not encouraging people to quit smoking, bad eating habits, environmental issues...etc. Its about awareness, in the end its your choice but many people do not know this choice exists. A lot, such as me, are scared to jump ship, people rather stick to what they know.

 

[macintoshmac]

For what it is worth, I started off with Windows 98 and ME. During the Vista days I bought my first laptop. After playing with Windows, I switched to Ubuntu, Fedora, RedHat, Arch, OpenSUSE and probably a couple more I do not even remember at the moment.

Experiences from a simple user standpoint:

Fedora and Arch were great, solid and stable. Applications did the work required, compatibility with hardware was an issue.

Compatibility-wise, and overall mixture of ease of use with myriad of alternative applications as well as hardware compatibility (printers), Ubuntu was very good. That and Arch were distros I used the longest on my laptop.

Meanwhile, I used to run a desktop Hackintosh as well and interoperability between Mac and Linux was fine.

Either ways, I believe that all three environments provide different positives and negatives, and the positives that we need and the negatives we can live with decide what OS we use everyday.

If I were into gaming, I would need Windows, no doubt.
For business and almost every other thing, macOS has worked for me for 13 years now.
For some specific needs, the Unix/ Linux environment is a must. I enjoyed the security it provided over Windows the most.

 

[alex cochez]

Plus with all the different "flavours" out there done for free by group of individuals does not seem too insuring for a solid user experience or reliability of software.

I switched a few months ago, MAC since 2004. No computer expert, but I tend to always find my way around.

I hear you, different distros, packaging managers, desktop environments, it's confusing and feels uneasy at start. But with the help of liveUSB, exploring some distros, I got over that. This all won't take long, apps to make a bootable USB stick and every linux distro, these are easy to find online. Exploring and trying out ain't more than a day or 2. Nothing to loose. If you don't like it at all, fine, at least you know. No one else can answer that.

I tried Ubuntu and Manjaro (both linux distributions) and 3 desktop environments (KDE, GNOME and XFCE). One stood out for me, Manjaro KDE (XFCE comes second). so I started to read, more specifically. There is definitely some learning curve, you got to go step by step, but I am glad I did. Now I stick with my choice, no need to start the journey all over again.

I understand how you feel about the terminal, but you grow into it, by now I am familiar with only a dozen of commands, and for me, that's all I need. When possible, I prefer the terminal.

Then, replacing software. This part I have enjoyed most so far. Stunning and refreshing to see how many smart people are involved here, spend their free time. This has truly changed my mindset.

Also, if linux turns out what you are looking for, choose hardware wisely, do some research before you buy. Some computer brands seem very well supported though.

Btw, since you asked, just sharing my (limited) experience. No push here. Windows, MacOS, each is fine and serves its purpose.

 

[MacBH928]

For what it is worth, I started off with Windows 98 and ME. During the Vista days I bought my first laptop. After playing with Windows, I switched to Ubuntu, Fedora, RedHat, Arch, OpenSUSE and probably a couple more I do not even remember at the moment.

Experiences from a simple user standpoint:

Fedora and Arch were great, solid and stable. Applications did the work required, compatibility with hardware was an issue.

Compatibility-wise, and overall mixture of ease of use with myriad of alternative applications as well as hardware compatibility (printers), Ubuntu was very good. That and Arch were distros I used the longest on my laptop.

Meanwhile, I used to run a desktop Hackintosh as well and interoperability between Mac and Linux was fine.

Either ways, I believe that all three environments provide different positives and negatives, and the positives that we need and the negatives we can live with decide what OS we use everyday.

If I were into gaming, I would need Windows, no doubt.
For business and almost every other thing, macOS has worked for me for 13 years now.
For some specific needs, the Unix/ Linux environment is a must. I enjoyed the security it provided over Windows the most.

I am surprised you say you are simple user but tried Arch, I thought Arch was one of the more advanced difficult ones.

I switched a few months ago, MAC since 2004. No computer expert, but I tend to always find my way around.

I hear you, different distros, packaging managers, desktop environments, it's confusing and feels uneasy at start. But with the help of liveUSB, exploring some distros, I got over that. This all won't take long, apps to make a bootable USB stick and every linux distro, these are easy to find online. Exploring and trying out ain't more than a day or 2. Nothing to loose. If you don't like it at all, fine, at least you know. No one else can answer that.

I tried Ubuntu and Manjaro (both linux distributions) and 3 desktop environments (KDE, GNOME and XFCE). One stood out for me, Manjaro KDE (XFCE comes second). so I started to read, more specifically. There is definitely some learning curve, you got to go step by step, but I am glad I did. Now I stick with my choice, no need to start the journey all over again.

I understand how you feel about the terminal, but you grow into it, by now I am familiar with only a dozen of commands, and for me, that's all I need. When possible, I prefer the terminal.

Then, replacing software. This part I have enjoyed most so far. Stunning and refreshing to see how many smart people are involved here, spend their free time. This has truly changed my mindset.

Also, if linux turns out what you are looking for, choose hardware wisely, do some research before you buy. Some computer brands seem very well supported though.

Btw, since you asked, just sharing my (limited) experience. No push here. Windows, MacOS, each is fine and serves its purpose.

Why did you settle on Manjaro?
Do files and folder maintain meta data when transferring over from a mac? Creation date and so on?

Most say Ubuntu and Mint is the best user friendly experience
I am ok with OS X, but if you need an extra system the Apple price is too much and seeing how Apple is neglecting the Mac and forcing some weird universal apps with mobile interface on OS X in the future, that and their form-over-function method makes you think you have to prepare to abandon ship.

Windows is a big NO for me, the price, the data collection, the experience just sucks.

 

[S.B.G]

Windows is a big NO for me, the price, the data collection, the experience just sucks.

I just happened to watch this video last night. It's a Linux user who reviews different distro's and generally goes over how to do and use certain things with them. He went away from his typical videos and did an installation video of Windows 10 this time. He says he hasn't seen or touched a Windows OS since XP until now.

I was watching with great humor as he installed it, got an error, got past it, then reviewed the EULA, the privacy setup and Cortana and everything else. It's amazing the difference between FOSS and proprietary licensed software like Windows when you pay attention to some of these details.

 

[macintoshmac]

I am surprised you say you are simple user but tried Arch, I thought Arch was one of the more advanced difficult ones.

By simple user I meant I have platform-agnostic needs so long as I don’t play games.

I had the perception too about Arch that it is advanced and such. In my experience, the only advanced thing was that one needs to know what they want to install, and how to go about the repositories. In other words, at the time, it wasn’t coming with pre-installed software for various needs and one had to choose everything, probably why it got its advanced tag.

Beyond that, in my own specific experience, I loved Arch for its speed and stability even though it used to be labelled as cutting edge at the time I used it.

 

[alex cochez]

I am surprised you say you are simple user but tried Arch, I thought Arch was one of the more advanced difficult ones.
Why did you settle on Manjaro?
Do files and folder maintain meta data when transferring over from a mac? Creation date and so on?
Most say Ubuntu and Mint is the best user friendly experience
I am ok with OS X, but if you need an extra system the Apple price is too much and seeing how Apple is neglecting the Mac and forcing some weird universal apps with mobile interface on OS X in the future, that and their form-over-function method makes you think you have to prepare to abandon ship.
.

I always liked OSX too. Nothing wrong there. Seems we are in the same boat though. I can't justify current prices and what I have learned over the last months, I believe I am better off now.

Note that I can't speak for DEB/RPM based distros (they may be easier). But trying out Ubuntu and Manjaro for a few days, Arch's packaging manager and where to find software quickly grew on me, so I decided not to look any further.

The reasons Arch/Manjaro got me:
- Arch repository: well maintained
- Arch wiki pages: well documented
- rolling distro: easy to keep system updated
- Manjaro: reasonably large community

What others have been saying here, I can only second that. In particular for Manjaro, very easy to install, it's literally only a few clicks away, while KDE is user friendly and pleasing to the eye. And for the few commands I got to know, at first you copy paste what you read online, after a few times you enter blindly and those commands that matter, eventually they will stick.

That said, along the way, you will experience some issues, in my case, hardware was supported, no extra work on that part, but the trackpad took me some late night reading to get it as precise and functional as what I am used to on a mac. You will be challenged and may have to rethink some parts of your workflow too. Then somehow you settle and you can get back to work.

I didn't migrate, most data I have is either cloud-based or on an external drive.

 

[MacBH928]

I just happened to watch this video last night. It's a Linux user who reviews different distro's and generally goes over how to do and use certain things with them. He went away from his typical videos and did an installation video of Windows 10 this time. He says he hasn't seen or touched a Windows OS since XP until now.

I was watching with great humor as he installed it, got an error, got past it, then reviewed the EULA, the privacy setup and Cortana and everything else. It's amazing the difference between FOSS and proprietary licensed software like Windows when you pay attention to some of these details.

hence why I started this thread, I really do not like the data collection. I really would like to break from the corporate chains and I wish more and more people will opt to the Linux format until its significant market share forces developers to support it and recognize it.

unfortunately that does not seem to happen as Linux has been around for over 2 decades and PC user base has been declining with people opting more for mobile devices.

I always liked OSX too. Nothing wrong there. Seems we are in the same boat though. I can't justify current prices and what I have learned over the last months, I believe I am better off now.

Note that I can't speak for DEB/RPM based distros (they may be easier). But trying out Ubuntu and Manjaro for a few days, Arch's packaging manager and where to find software quickly grew on me, so I decided not to look any further.

The reasons Arch/Manjaro got me:
- Arch repository: well maintained
- Arch wiki pages: well documented
- rolling distro: easy to keep system updated
- Manjaro: reasonably large community

What others have been saying here, I can only second that. In particular for Manjaro, very easy to install, it's literally only a few clicks away, while KDE is user friendly and pleasing to the eye. And for the few commands I got to know, at first you copy paste what you read online, after a few times you enter blindly and those commands that matter, eventually they will stick.

That said, along the way, you will experience some issues, in my case, hardware was supported, no extra work on that part, but the trackpad took me some late night reading to get it as precise and functional as what I am used to on a mac. You will be challenged and may have to rethink some parts of your workflow too. Then somehow you settle and you can get back to work.

I didn't migrate, most data I have is either cloud-based or on an external drive.

Most confusing to me is that many distros proclaim they are the "user friendly" distro. I just found out there is another distro called Zorin that proclaims its the user friendly distro. So far we have Ubuntu, Manjaro, Mint, Elementary, and Zorin.

I highly appreciate you input in this thread and thanks for sharing.

 

[S.B.G]

hence why I started this thread, I really do not like the data collection. I really would like to break from the corporate chains and I wish more and more people will opt to the Linux format until its significant market share forces developers to support it and recognize it.

unfortunately that does not seem to happen as Linux has been around for over 2 decades and PC user base has been declining with people opting more for mobile devices.

I agree with you. However I don't see GNU/Linux or BSD ever gaining much more than the 2% they have now. It's just a totally different philosophy for GNU/Linux, FOSS, than it is in the corporate money-making centers of Apple and Microsoft who actively try to get customers with mass production and advertising. GNU/Linux and whatnot are still and probably will always be a niche market for the few who discover it on their own somehow or hear about it from someone who uses it and is willing to put a little effort into learning it.

Most confusing to me is that many distros proclaim they are the "user friendly" distro. I just found out there is another distro called Zorin that proclaims its the user friendly distro. So far we have Ubuntu, Manjaro, Mint, Elementary, and Zorin.

I highly appreciate you input in this thread and thanks for sharing.

You're finding that most distro's really are user friendly. The popular ones all have easy installers, desktop environments that look and operate basically the same as one another and Windows and macOS. They all just put a little different polish on their own distro.

The distro's a newbie should avoid typically are baseline Arch and Gentoo. Those have a lot of technical and manual installation and configuration work to overcome before a user will have a functional environment to use. Otherwise, one really can't go wrong with most any of the other popular distro's right now.

 

[S.B.G]

Here's a good video talk about choosing a distro. I quite agree with all of his points.

 

[Roxy.music]

I am trying to get a a VPN on Linux ,i have it on my Mac but can,t get it on get it on Linux
Why is it so complicated Why can,t VPN.S put it in written so we can just copy and paste?If anyone on here can write all the stuff you have to do to get it on there i would be happy.

 

[MacDawg]

Which VPN are you using and which Linux Distro?

I have NordVPN running on Ubuntu 18.04 with no issues
I Googled the install and followed the steps and it worked

 

[MacBH928]

Here's a good video talk about choosing a distro. I quite agree with all of his points.

Indeed I was in the paradox of choice, that video makes it so much simpler to understand. I was under the impression that a different distro means a different OS with similarities with the others. What I still don't understand is why or what makes the major ones different like Arch, Debian, Slackware, Suse, since they are all Linux.

I was going to go with elementary but it seems they have to push some stuff on you so its down to 3:

1-Manjaro: Its based on Arch, and I was told Debian based are easier and more popular
2-Mint: I have to try it first, but I don't think I like the looks of it.
3-Zorin: Looks the best and easiest, but seems a little obscure

 

[09872738]

Hi all,

I‘d like to weigh in OpenSuSE... imo the most professional distro; in particular its system setting app „YAST“ is genius. From graphically (super easy) setting up your Samba server, firewalls, snapshot configuration to KVM setup. Unique in the Linux space

Only occasional issue - which is not SuSEs fault - is that some packages are not available (plex server comes to mind) for SuSE and may need some tinkering.

For the average user though its stellar

 

[S.B.G]

What I still don't understand is why or what makes the major ones different like Arch, Debian, Slackware, Suse, since they are all Linux.

Really the differences between distro's besides the desktop environment (DE) is the package managers and repositories. They all do basically the same thing, but differently. They are where your OS get's it's updates and where you find programs to install. Then there is the point about stability. Debian and Debian based distro's are considered some of the most stable and reliable ones, while distro's based on Arch and Gentoo are more cutting and bleeding edge distro's, especially if you use baseline Arch and Gentoo. What that means is when you do updates you are getting the very latest ones available and sometimes they'll break things or require some re-configuring.

Debian and Red Hat based distro's and OpenSuSE are considered very stable and the updates they push out are well tested beforehand and released when they're ready and not likely to break things. That's why Debian and the like are so popular. Plus their repositories are well stocked, though some will debate that Arch's AUR is even better stocked with programs. Regardless of that, most every program can either be easily installed from the repositories or manually installed by the user if they choose.

I was going to go with elementary but it seems they have to push some stuff on you so its down to 3:

1-Manjaro: Its based on Arch, and I was told Debian based are easier and more popular
2-Mint: I have to try it first, but I don't think I like the looks of it.
3-Zorin: Looks the best and easiest, but seems a little obscure

Manjaro is a great Arch-based distro, but still on the cutting edge and sometimes can break stuff. Plus they take a very serious approach to FOSS drivers. If you have Intel and/or nVidia hardware on your machine, you may run into some issues with getting FOSS or even proprietary drivers to work. I had some issues with that on my PC with the integrated Intel graphics onboard. But if you have AMD chips and graphics Manjaro will be a bit less troublesome.

I'm running MX Linux now on my desktop and new-to-me laptop and quite like it a lot. It's Debian based and very stable. It also happens to be holding the #1 spot on DistroWatch's popularity list right now.

The coolest thing about Linux is regardless of which distro you choose, you can always change how it looks by installing a different DE (Gnome, Plasma, XFCE, etc..) and/or installing themes to change the looks of your DE. You can also use a Window Manager (WM) instead of a DE, like i3 (which I use) or DWM or AWESOME. Though WM's are more complex to configure and get setup compared to a DE where they do it all for you.

Give MX Linux a look if you have time.

 

[kschendel]

I‘d like to weigh in OpenSuSE... imo the most professional distro...

I like OpenSuSE, to the point where I converted a couple of Centos 7 cluster nodes to OpenSuSE just because the differences were annoying rather than enlightening. I've used OpenSuSE for so many years, though, that I can't honestly say whether my preference is because it's better, or because I'm used to it.

 

[MacBH928]

Really the differences between distro's besides the desktop environment (DE) is the package managers and repositories. They all do basically the same thing, but differently. They are where your OS get's it's updates and where you find programs to install. Then there is the point about stability. Debian and Debian based distro's are considered some of the most stable and reliable ones, while distro's based on Arch and Gentoo are more cutting and bleeding edge distro's, especially if you use baseline Arch and Gentoo. What that means is when you do updates you are getting the very latest ones available and sometimes they'll break things or require some re-configuring.

Debian and Red Hat based distro's and OpenSuSE are considered very stable and the updates they push out are well tested beforehand and released when they're ready and not likely to break things. That's why Debian and the like are so popular. Plus their repositories are well stocked, though some will debate that Arch's AUR is even better stocked with programs. Regardless of that, most every program can either be easily installed from the repositories or manually installed by the user if they choose.

Manjaro is a great Arch-based distro, but still on the cutting edge and sometimes can break stuff. Plus they take a very serious approach to FOSS drivers. If you have Intel and/or nVidia hardware on your machine, you may run into some issues with getting FOSS or even proprietary drivers to work. I had some issues with that on my PC with the integrated Intel graphics onboard. But if you have AMD chips and graphics Manjaro will be a bit less troublesome.

I'm running MX Linux now on my desktop and new-to-me laptop and quite like it a lot. It's Debian based and very stable. It also happens to be holding the #1 spot on DistroWatch's popularity list right now.

The coolest thing about Linux is regardless of which distro you choose, you can always change how it looks by installing a different DE (Gnome, Plasma, XFCE, etc..) and/or installing themes to change the looks of your DE. You can also use a Window Manager (WM) instead of a DE, like i3 (which I use) or DWM or AWESOME. Though WM's are more complex to configure and get setup compared to a DE where they do it all for you.

Give MX Linux a look if you have time.

Whats the special twist about MX Linux?
The problem is that they all proclaim to be user friendly, stable, secure, open-source... etc. I am not sure why they are putting the effort into creating all these different distros. ex. If Ubuntu is user friendly and stable, why create Mint or Zorin? I imagine its no small feat to create a different distro.

 

[millerj123]

Whats the special twist about MX Linux?
The problem is that they all proclaim to be user friendly, stable, secure, open-source... etc. I am not sure why they are putting the effort into creating all these different distros. ex. If Ubuntu is user friendly and stable, why create Mint or Zorin? I imagine its no small feat to create a different distro.

Typically because they don’t like the way things are done on a particular distro. Whether that’s clashes with current leadership, something is included or excluded or whatever, is sometimes hard to say. At the end of the day, because they can.

 

[S.B.G]

Whats the special twist about MX Linux?
The problem is that they all proclaim to be user friendly, stable, secure, open-source... etc. I am not sure why they are putting the effort into creating all these different distros. ex. If Ubuntu is user friendly and stable, why create Mint or Zorin? I imagine its no small feat to create a different distro.

I don't think there is really anything special about MX Linux compared to another distro. I just like that it's Debian-based, not from the Ubuntu fork, and isn't heavy on resources either. It came out of the box with support for my hardware and drivers that I needed without having to do anything else.

Just as @millerj123 points out, all these different distro's are out there just because they can. That's the philosophy behind Linux and FOSS; that anyone can take the kernel or distro and create their own version of Linux and put it out there for everyone. If you or I had the expertise and desire to, we could make our own distro as well.

 

[MacBH928]

I don't think there is really anything special about MX Linux compared to another distro. I just like that it's Debian-based, not from the Ubuntu fork, and isn't heavy on resources either. It came out of the box with support for my hardware and drivers that I needed without having to do anything else.

Just as @millerj123 points out, all these different distro's are out there just because they can. That's the philosophy behind Linux and FOSS; that anyone can take the kernel or distro and create their own version of Linux and put it out there for everyone. If you or I had the expertise and desire to, we could make our own distro as well.

thank you for answering my questions, do you mind if I ask how do I backup a Linux OS? On MacOS I use CarbonCopyCloner and its flawless, it create a bootable backup.

 

[S.B.G]

thank you for answering my questions, do you mind if I ask how do I backup a Linux OS? On MacOS I use CarbonCopyCloner and its flawless, it create a bootable backup.

Timeshift is probably one of the most popular GUI applications that I am aware of. If you're into command line stuff then Rsync is probably the most popular one.

EDIT:
Another good practice many Linux users do is to create separate partitions during the install. Many distro's might do this automatically, or offer the choice with an 'advanced' button during install.

But what you can do is create a boot partition so the BIOS or UEFI knows how to boot the OS, obviously. Then create a root partition where the root user and all the programs and the Linux OS will go. Then you create a home partition where your daily driver user accounts and files/data will be stored.

There is some debate on whether a swap partition is still needed on the modern Linux installation. But I think it is still useful for when you put a computer to sleep or hibernate. I still make one and create its size about 12% to 15% of the RAM the computer has.

By having separate root and home partitions, it adds a small layer of protection to the user's data and account should the OS get hosed and need to be reinstalled. The OS can be reinstalled on that root partition without having to mess with the home partition thus preserving the data and user accounts.

If the whole HDD or SSD craps out, well, then partitions won't matter of course.

 

[alex cochez]

Timeshift is probably one of the most popular GUI applications that I am aware of.

Very valuable, I just installed. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[throAU]

As a user of both for over a decade - the problem isn't linux, it's the apps.

If you have specific applications you use/need on macOS for creativity, they don't exist on Linux.

If all you do is basic internet stuff, linux will be fine.

 

[MacBH928]

Timeshift is probably one of the most popular GUI applications that I am aware of. If you're into command line stuff then Rsync is probably the most popular one.

EDIT:
Another good practice many Linux users do is to create separate partitions during the install. Many distro's might do this automatically, or offer the choice with an 'advanced' button during install.

But what you can do is create a boot partition so the BIOS or UEFI knows how to boot the OS, obviously. Then create a root partition where the root user and all the programs and the Linux OS will go. Then you create a home partition where your daily driver user accounts and files/data will be stored.

There is some debate on whether a swap partition is still needed on the modern Linux installation. But I think it is still useful for when you put a computer to sleep or hibernate. I still make one and create its size about 12% to 15% of the RAM the computer has.

By having separate root and home partitions, it adds a small layer of protection to the user's data and account should the OS get hosed and need to be reinstalled. The OS can be reinstalled on that root partition without having to mess with the home partition thus preserving the data and user accounts.

If the whole HDD or SSD craps out, well, then partitions won't matter of course.

You mean I should install Linux on 3 partitions? That works?
I thought each partition works as its own "world", system files won't cross work between partitions.

As a user of both for over a decade - the problem isn't linux, it's the apps.

If you have specific applications you use/need on macOS for creativity, they don't exist on Linux.

If all you do is basic internet stuff, linux will be fine.

This might be a stupid question but, if MacOS is based on FreeBSD which is Unix-like system and Linux is a Unix-like system, doesn't this mean that MacOS application should be easily imported to Linux?