I assumed you knew what the acronym stood for (and you clearly do) so I didn’t type it out, but I think “Long-Term Stable” is fairly self explanatory at least to the level a newcomer would need.
I didn’t say they wouldn’t know what it meant, I said they would be unlikely to know how it will affect them in their daily usage.
Most Windows users are accustomed to installing and updating their own applications, and letting the OS deal with its own updates and patches. They probably don’t think much about all the dependencies and what version they’re on because the installers deal with it.
When deciding whether to use a Linux LTS they may think it sounds like a good idea, with no appreciation for what happens when a package gets out of date, and their package manager won’t update it, and they don’t know why. They go down the rabbit hole of adding PPAs etc, which solves it in the short term maybe. Then it only gets worse from there, because they didn’t understand that using an LTS means you have chosen to accept some packages being out of date for a while, until the next LTS is released.
Maybe they’re the kind of person that is happy with that, or maybe they’re not. But if you try to explain to the average Windows user about package repositories, Flatpaks, Snaps, LTS, rolling releases etc, you can pretty much guarantee they’ll never try it because it sounds too damn hard.
Which brings me back to my original point… Us Linux users argue amongst ourselves too much about this stuff to attract Windows users, no matter what Microsoft does with their data.
“If you want super up to date stuff, an LTS is not your best choice, I’d go for something like Fedora and just keep back ups or set up snapper using this easy guide on youtube.” (For example.)
”Package managers are basically your app store, you’ll probably have the official one for your distro and then a general one called flatpak, use these for downloading your ‘apps.’" They can understand a few basic things, they’re windows users not Amish.
I assumed you knew what the acronym stood for (and you clearly do) so I didn’t type it out, but I think “Long-Term Stable” is fairly self explanatory at least to the level a newcomer would need.
I didn’t say they wouldn’t know what it meant, I said they would be unlikely to know how it will affect them in their daily usage.
Most Windows users are accustomed to installing and updating their own applications, and letting the OS deal with its own updates and patches. They probably don’t think much about all the dependencies and what version they’re on because the installers deal with it.
When deciding whether to use a Linux LTS they may think it sounds like a good idea, with no appreciation for what happens when a package gets out of date, and their package manager won’t update it, and they don’t know why. They go down the rabbit hole of adding PPAs etc, which solves it in the short term maybe. Then it only gets worse from there, because they didn’t understand that using an LTS means you have chosen to accept some packages being out of date for a while, until the next LTS is released.
Maybe they’re the kind of person that is happy with that, or maybe they’re not. But if you try to explain to the average Windows user about package repositories, Flatpaks, Snaps, LTS, rolling releases etc, you can pretty much guarantee they’ll never try it because it sounds too damn hard.
Which brings me back to my original point… Us Linux users argue amongst ourselves too much about this stuff to attract Windows users, no matter what Microsoft does with their data.
“If you want super up to date stuff, an LTS is not your best choice, I’d go for something like Fedora and just keep back ups or set up snapper using this easy guide on youtube.” (For example.)
”Package managers are basically your app store, you’ll probably have the official one for your distro and then a general one called flatpak, use these for downloading your ‘apps.’" They can understand a few basic things, they’re windows users not Amish.