Why would you need any user retraining?
All distros are basically identical. The only real difference is whether you spell "package manager" as apt, yum, or dnf.
Why would you need any user retraining?
All distros are basically identical. The only real difference is whether you spell "package manager" as apt, yum, or dnf.
For people with a level of technical literacy that has them interested in posting on HN, sure. But for typical government workers? I imagine the differences are going to be pretty significant. They're not programmers or "devops" people.
We're talking about users who are going to do almost everything through the GUI, and who will associate the "distro" with the default choice of DE/WM/etc. stack in whichever flavour of whichever distro it is. Understanding what a "package manager" even is, will be the responsibility of "IT" specialists. Assuming they don't decide that only, say, Flatpak-installable software can be approved.
We're talking about massively bureaucratic institutions that have been steeped in Windows orthodoxy for decades. That's the administration policy they know, so it's what they will forcibly adapt to Linux.
You're going to need user retraining because the GUI has its own file manager program and no matter which one you choose (and they will choose exactly one) it is not Explorer. Because LibreOffice is not the Microsoft Office suite, and neither is any of its FOSS competitors. And so on and so forth. There's no telling what idiosyncrasies people depend on. In organizations like this I really doubt you can count on everyone being generically computer literate. I really doubt that generic computer literacy (as opposed to demonstrated competence with specific applications) was ever part of the hiring requirements.
> But for typical government workers? I imagine the differences are going to be pretty significant. They're not programmers or "devops" people.
How much retraining do you need for "click on the orange and blue spinny fox thingy and wait for your email to come up"?
> because the GUI has its own file manager program and no matter which one you choose (and they will choose exactly one) it is not Explorer
Nobody is ever going to use it. They're going to use a web browser.
> There's no telling what idiosyncrasies people depend on.
Funny way of spelling "Firefox bugs", but whatever.
> In organizations like this I really doubt you can count on everyone being generically computer literate
Basic adult literacy is computer literacy. If you can read you can use a computer.
I get the sense you haven't worked with many non-technical people in government or enterprise contexts. I've seen people struggle with their workflows after upgrading to a newer version of Windows, to the point where company wide training sessions have had to be held.
This comment is completely out of touch with how typical office workers use their computers. "Package manager" is your feldspars. But it's even worse than that, because you don't train for the typical employee, you train for the least-technical employee lest they become completely useless overnight.
> because you don't train for the typical employee, you train for the least-technical employee lest they become completely useless overnight.
"Click on the blue and orange spinny fox thingy" is easy for even the thickest user.
> "Package manager" is your feldspars.
I hate that I understood this.
Yes. Noting that yum and dnf are basically the same.
>All distros are basically identical.
Have you ever used the Linux OS??
Let me guess, you're impressed by desktop decorations and which file-browser is the default.
Ubuntu differs from Fedora only in newbie stuff, for instance.
Fedora pisses me off more than Ubuntu does, and Ubuntu pisses me off least of all distros, except for Alpine which pisses me off in totally different directions for different reasons to all of the "proper desktop" distros.
All OSes are shit.
Even the ones you like.
Even the ones I like.
Especially the ones I like, I guess.
Yes, since it came on two 1.44MB floppies.