I’m talking about like your mom if she started using Linux, and just needs it to be able to open a web browser and check Facebook or her email or something. A student that just needs a laptop to do homework and take notes, or someone that just wants to play games on Steam and chat on discord.
I’m working on a Windows - > Linux guide targeting people like this and I want to make sure it can be understood by just about anybody. A problem that I’ve noticed is that most guides trying to do something like this seem to operate under the assumption that the viewer already knows what Linux is and has already made up their mind about switching, or that they’re already pretty computer savvy. This guide won’t be that, I’m writing a guide and keeping my parents in mind the whole time.
Because of this there’s some things I probably won’t talk about. Do these people really need to know that it’s actually GNU+Linux? No, I don’t think so. Should I explain how to install, use and configure hyprland, or compile a custom gaming kernel? I dont think that’s really necessary. You get what I’m saying? I don’t want to over complicate this and scare people off.
That being said I also want to make sure that I’m not over simplifying by skipping on key things they should know. So what are some key concepts or things that you think even the most basic of Linux users should understand? Bonus points if you can provide a solid entry level explanation of it too.
Is that really still a thing on modern distros? I haven’t had to think about that in literally decades (on Gentoo).
It depends on the distro and how it feels about shipping non-free software. Fedora, as an example, still ships without them.
Wait, what codecs (commonly used by Linux distros) aren’t free software?
As far as I know the original issues back in the day was with patents, not licenses, especially with MPEG. And because it was patents (which I think aren’t even valid in most jurisdictions except the hell-hole called USA), the issue was mostly with what commercial distros wanted to ship to their customers, not what the end-user could legally use. These days I thought we’re using mostly patent-free codecs or people realized they aren’t really enforceable anyways. Fedora maybe kind of makes sense, since its users are basically free beta-testers for RHEL, which is mostly US-based and commercial, so would be the most likely to be affected by patent-trolls.
H.265 is a pretty major one. E-AC-3 for audio. Ideally, for a desktop user, you want to be able to play anything. So you need know if your distro includes those codecs. Then how to install them if it doesn’t. Then you need to delete your thumbnail cache to fix the thumbnails.
It’s not hard. You just have to know that that’s a task you need to do. Coming from windows, a user is likely to just assume linux doesn’t support video properly and it’s thumbnails are broken.
With regards to patents or not being free software? Because ffmpeg includes those and is definitely free software. You also need x265 for encoding I think, but that’s also free software.
Sure. I was just surprised it’s still a thing at all. None of the distros I use have this problem (Gentoo, Arch, Ubuntu, Libreelec).
H.265 is royalty free for non-commercial use. It’s ownership is kind of complicated with a bunch of patents and it is commercial licensing is controlled by a few groups.
If I understand correctly (and I’m no lawyer) FFMPEG is completely non-commercial so they don’t have an issue. Although I think anyone using FFMPEG for commercial applications (streamers, professional productions, etc…) should be paying a license.
I guess some distros felt that was legally murky for them and others aren’t comfortable with non-libre software.
I really wish Fedora would figure out a legal workaround and bundle in the codecs, but for now I just have to remember to set it up before I add any media.
Let’s get something completely straight: ffmpeg is completely, 100%, no-restrictions, free as in libre software. This has nothing whatsoever to do with “not being comfortable with non-libre software”. That’s just FUD at best.
Legal considerations about patent/license trolls in corrupt neoliberal hell-holes might be justified for commercial projects. Most distros however seem to be getting away just fine by assuming end-users get their license for the codec/patents somewhere else if they even need one.
That’s not an attack on ffmpeg. It’s 1,000% not fud. I’m not disputing its libre bonifides. H265 is not libre. It’s also not part of the ffmpeg code. But they can be distributed together because it’s non-commercial.
My apologies if I worded something in a way that wasn’t clear about that.
Separate from that issue.
There are distros that do not want to incorporate any non-libre elements into their OS for ideological reasons. They won’t have h265.
Then there are distros that have commercial elements, or for which their parent company has some kind of commercial interest in the distribution. If they don’t want to pay for licensing they may have legal limitations on their ability to incorporate h265.
But any completely non-commercial software that wants to bundle h265 in has cart blanche to do so.
I hope that clears things up.