All Linux distros are usually very stable. I have been using Linux for 15 years (multiple distros) and for me it "just works". Sure, I am an advanced user, so I never end up breaking my system and having to format it. But in my experience, users who say "it's the fourth time I reinstall Linux this quarter, it's just not stable", what it means is that they, the user, broke it. Their distro is most certainly more stable than what they claim.
Now some distros are more beginner-friendly than others, and for the most accessible (Mint comes to mind), I guess they could be compared to Windows. I couldn't say if Windows is easier to use than Mint for someone who does not already know how to navigate Windows. Just like I genuinely don't understand when people say "macOS is easier than Windows" or "iOS is easier than Android". To me they are almost exactly the same, I just don't get it.
My feeling is that most users just don't care about their computer and just need to be able to start their browser and maybe Outlook/Teams. If their very first system was Linux Mint with the browser preinstalled, maybe they would end up thinking this is the absolute simplest system they can imagine?
That's true.
> But in my experience, users who say "it's the fourth time I reinstall Linux this quarter, it's just not stable", what it means is that they, the user, broke it.
It really depends. Compiz with Unity was very unstable, and that wasn’t the user’s fault. Pop!_OS with the COSMIC desktop is also still quite unstable. Gnome break extensions support every new release. As I said in my post, you can “compose” a stable Linux system, but it requires a lot of knowledge, because in my opinion most FOSS desktop software does not prioritize stability. The server side is a different story.
bigyabai•1h ago
I think the AUR begs to differ, and is a huge reason why the typical Arch user reinstalls their desktop every N months.
wook__•37m ago