Linux

Was ready to downvote but this is actually a really good guide, well done OP! The one issue I will raise, though, because I faced it myself, is that as long as you're still using Windows, it is way too easy to just go back to using the Windows programs not the open source ones. Only through switching to Linux can you really "throw yourself into the deep end" and force yourself to learn these new things. Microsoft has made themselves the "path of least resistance" (or at least that of "most momentum" for a reason) and if you've been using a computer for a while, it's a lot easier to break the habits and realise the benefits by giving yourself no other option than it is by trying to discipline yourself into using the new options.

Use libreoffice over open office.

I don't understand the difficulty. My kid who used Windows for at least 7 years installed Ubuntu and just started using it. Why is this difficult for people? I helped him boot the computer from a USB stick and that's it.

Here is the app store, install programs from here.

Ok.

Being a linux user for 23 years and a linux promoter and installer for newbies, I don't agree with so many of your recommendations and priorities.

My concern with this take is that it positions the switch as all downsides. You do not get any of the Linux benefits, just the compromised experience on Windows. You may decide it is not worth it even before switching.

A better title would be "The best way to switch to Linux is slowly."

I keep trying to explain how Linux advocacy gets the challenges of mainstream Linux usage wrong and, while I appreciate the fresh take here, I'm afraid that's still the case.

Effectively this guide is: lightly compromise your Windows experience for a while until you're ready, followed by "here's a bunch of alien concepts you don't know or care about and actively disprove the idea that it's all about the app alternatives."

I understand why this doesn't read that way to the "community", but parse it as an outsider for a moment. What's a snap? Why are they bad? Why would I hate updates? Aren't updates automatic as they are in Windows? Why would I ever pick the hardware-incompatible distros? What's the tradeoff supposed to be, does that imply there is a downside to Mint over Ubuntu? It sure feels like I need to think about this picking a distro thing a lot more than the headline suggested. Also, what's a DE and how is that different to a distro? Did they just say I need a virtual machine to test these DE things before I can find one that works? WTF is that about?

Look, I keep trying to articulate the key misunderstanding and it's genuinely hard. I think the best way to put it is that all these "switch to Linux, it's fun!" guides are all trying to onboard users to a world of fun tinkering as a hobby. And that's great, it IS fun to tinker as a hobby, to some people. But that's not the reason people use Windows.

If you're on Windows and mildly frustrated about whatever MS is doing that week, the thing you want is a one button install that does everything for you, works first time and requires zero tinkering in the first place. App substitutes are whatever, UI changes and different choices in different DEs are trivial to adapt to (honestly, it's all mostly Windows-like or Mac-like, clearly normies don't particularly struggle with that). But if you're out there introducing even a hint of arguments about multiple technical choices, competing standards for app packages or VMs being used to test out different desktop environments you're kinda missing the point of what's keeping the average user from stepping away from their mainstream commercial OS.

In fairness, this isn't the guide's fault, it's all intrinsic to the Linux desktop ecosystem. It IS more cumbersome and convoluted from that perspective. If you ask me, the real advice I would have for a Windows user that wants to consider swapping would be: get a device that comes with a dedicated Linux setup out of the box. Seriously, go get a Steam Deck, go get a System76 laptop, a Raspberry Pi or whatever else you can find out there that has some flavor of Linux built specifically for it and use that for a bit. That bypasses 100% of this crap and just works out of the box, the way Android or ChromeOS work out of the box. You'll get to know whether that's for you much quicker, more organically and with much less of a hassle that way... at the cost of needing new hardware. But hey, on the plus side, new hardware!

So you’ve just posted your personal choices as though they were THE way to go. There are countless alternatives for everything. Just making that clear.

Fuck all that.

Install Linux, any flavor. Install virtualbox, and set up a Windows VM. Go ahead and install any of your windows bullshit on that VM. That's your crutch, your failsafe: a windows instance that you don't have to leave Linux to access.

Save snapshots before and after any changes, so if/when it goes to shit, you can roll it back to where it was still working.

Or, conversely, just switch to Linux.

Take an hour or so to have a look around the place.

Go on the internet if you have any questions.

People are smarter than you assume and if you want Linux to grow in popularity we need to stop pretending any if this is difficult.

I just want to add, obviously I am not an expert in every field in the world and cannot find an alternative for everything but if you do want to do some research sites like alternativeto.net are great resources.

Avoiding snaps on Ubuntu sadly is not an option anymore. Maybe go for pop!_os Instead of Ubuntu.

Strongly recommend a KDE-based distro if coming from Windows.

Gnome is too janky when you're used to the workflow in Windows. It's almost like Windows 8, which nobody uses if they can help it.

KDE is just way more familiar.

Another option if you have a laptop and desktop is to test the waters slowly with the laptop, and keep your desktop as is. It's what I did for a long while to get used to things on Linux.

If there is a critical problem with my Linux instalation on my laptop, it's OK because all the real stuff I care about is still on the desktop. So I'm free to wipe the laptop at a moments notice. It's the easiest way to learn in my experience.

This is what I've unknowingly been doing. All my open source apps are in Linux. The transition was pretty smooth.

You already use Draw to replace publisher in your list so why not use the rest of the Libre Office Suite?

Note: this belongs more in a Windows community than a Linux one. The people here would already use Gnu/Linux or Google/Linux

Great write-up, but in my opinion this is exactly the wrong way around.
That way, you don't gain anything from your "switch" up front.
Better to switch to Linux and keep the apps you know wherever possible. Office, Teams, Photoshop, Lightroom and many others are available as web apps now. For many others, there are versions ported to Linux or running well in Wine. Finally, Gnome Boxes makes it trivial to integrate a small 50GB Windows VM to run apps where there's no other option.
Then you can slowly migrate to Linux-specific open source tools, in your own time.

It helps if you can get away from an app-centric view of computing to a result-centric view:
You don't need MS Office, you want to create/edit documents, tables or presentations.
You don't need Photoshop, you want to edit images.
You don't need Outlook, you want to connect to Exchange.
Almost all tasks are possible to do on Linux if you change your workflow a bit. Some aren't, especially when you're forced to collaborate with others in a professional setting. In that case, you can still minimize your Windows usage to what's necessary, by using Wine, web apps, dual-booting, using 2 devices, running a Windows VM inside Linux, or running a Linux VM inside Windows, depending on your needs.

Davinci Resolve is not a solution for at least 60% of the people who would move to Linux. The new version has trouble working on Debian-based systems (even with the various scripts and workarounds that exist), and it requires an nvidia card with lots of GBs of VRAM (while it does work on Windows with Intel/AMD without big problems). So I'd never suggest Resolve to someone moving to Linux unless they're going to use Fedora, and have a recent nvidia card. For everyone else, there's KDENLive and Shotcut. Which are way worse in the things they can do compared to Resolve (especially when it comes to professional color grading and audio plugins specifically for human speech), but that's the situation we're in.

Enough with your psyop, Bill. Go back to trying to cure malaria to atone for your past sins.

I would say: "Don't switch to Linux. Just start with Linux and never use Windows or Mac in the first place"

Don't have to get used to something if you've never used something else.

... as someone who completely involuntary switches everyones computers I manage for some reason (ie extended family mostly) to Linux ... normies don't care that much.

No asking, no thinking, just Linux.

Dual booting is also an option.

I would still say dual booting is the superior option, but that might be complicated for some people, so this is probably a good recommendation.

OnlyOffice is problematic. They abuse additional clauses in the AGPL license to make code redistribution impossible. Thus, effectively making the software source-available freeware while still profiting from the Free Software image.

tl;dw:

Improvise (but not really). Adapt. Overcome.

Then again, I'd rather go for a much "cleaner" approach and suggest new users to "unlearn" the bad habits learnt by using Windows. Which is the "click once and forget" mentality, along many others.

Remember, annotating PDF is fine but editing PDF is not fine. .doc or .odt files are supposed to be edited. PDF files are supposed to be printed or filled (fill the blanks). If you require editing a pdf, someone in the process is making a mistake.

Just dual boot

I want to use Thunderbird but my university won't let me log into my email outside of Outlook... So dumb.

Or just install Linux.

I get what you're trying to say but I disagree with this. Software can be a barrier to switching OS but it very much depends on the individual user's needs - it's not as easy as substituting open source for closed, and is only part of the difference anyway. For example, I use Outlook at work; Thunderbird is great but it is in no way a substitute for Outlook. Similarly, I use Microsoft Office 365 at work; OnlyOffice is in no way a substitute for an individual user (it can be for a whole business or for personal use, but not if you're tied in to an organisation or employer using Office). If you're tied into those platforms with work, then for occasional use you can just use the online versions of Microsoft Office in Linux via a web browser. And if you need to work from home or do more, then realistically you need to have Windows and access to the full suite installed locally.

But software does not preclude switching to Linux; for example I dual boot between Windows and Linux on my home PC. I have an M.2 drive for Windows and another M.2 drive for Linux. I rarely use Windows at all now, but when I do it's if for some reason I need to be doing work related stuff from home or rarely if I can't get a game working in Linux. In Linux I can do all my web browsing, social media, video streaming, music listening, even gaming and I know I'm doing so privately and securely.

I'd say the best way to switch to Linux is to switch to Linux. New users do not have to be "all in" - they can dual boot between Linux and Windows (or MacOS and Linux), and then have a low level of risk to try out the OS. It can even be beneficial in itself as they can compartmentalise work and free time by OS. And if they don't want to dual boot, then just try it out by virtualisation.

Never had issue with this. For my work I've always used Blender 3D, Gimp, and Krita. The one thing that used to hold me back from using Linux was my Steam game library, but then Valve introduced Proton and all my reasons to stay on Windows evaporated.

Been a happy Linux user for a few years now.

Is it people that want to switch away from Windows or switch to Linux?

In my case it was the former, having spent a lot of time on FreeBSD so in 2007 I bought a Macbook Pro running OSX 10.3. This gave me most of what I wanted and when I needed something Windows (XP) specific I installed a VM running under Parallels, then Virtual Box. I was able to run most of the open source software at that time such as Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird in preference to the Apple supplied apps.