In Windows and macOS we do not have this "problem", the one that makes us have to decide between a more restrained operating system or another that goes at full speed with updates. In Linux there are distros like Arch Linux, which, as they say, when something new comes out and they make sure it doesn't break anything, they upload it, and others like Debian, which release a version every two years with tried and failed software. If you choose an option with LTS-based or like what Debian offers, we will be using software at a more mature point, but is it the best idea?
As always, the best may not be one thing or the other. It is always best to make informed decisions. When someone switching to Linux is advised on what to use, they are likely to be told "Ubuntu LTS", and explain that the LTS foundation is more reliable, but something like what the header screenshot shows is not often reported: Linux Mint 21.1, based on Ubuntu 22.04, offers Telegram 3.6.1 in its official repositories as the most up-to-date version, but I'm already using v4.8.1. I don't just use a more up-to-date one; It is that I use one that has even changed the first number, and the second is already at 8. There is nothing.
The LTS base can force us to install software on our own
One note before we go any further: I know that Debian and Arch Linux would be the extremes, and that there are also options in between.
I find it important that less experienced users know this. Those of us who do know how to find life we can find solutions. For example, add this repo and install something newer, which at the moment is somewhat behind the latest, but much more up-to-date than that v3.6.1 from the official Ubuntu repositories. We can also go to the official page and download the file for Linux, but it doesn't seem like the best idea in the world for those who don't know to do something similar and launch executables without knowing what they contain.
Telegram is also as a package flatpack y snap, and this last one is the problem: for Ubuntu, Pavel Durov's company decided to offer the possibility of using this type of packages, and if the distribution does not take care of doing something to avoid it, either you are looking for your life or you have to end with the package listed in the software store. Because yes, they may upload a package on their own, but they only do it with the most popular ones, as Chromium.
Telegram is just one example. There are also others, such as GIMP, which has 2.10.30 in the official Ubuntu repositories and 2.10.34 is already available. We can also pull from Flathub and Snapcraft, but does the user who was used to going to the official page and downloading an installer know that? I don't believe it.
Totally different for those who already know all this
I also don't think they know what happens with the facilities of the new generation packages. And by this I don't mean that they have to know code or anything like that; I mean that they have dependencies that no one talks about, and, as I explained at the time, a program of a few megabytes can end up weighing more than 1GB. How is it possible? Well, because for it to work, the first time packages related to the desktops are also downloaded. If they are developed for GNOME/GTK, some packages; if they are for KDE, others. And they weigh.
An LTS base is totally different for those who know what it entails. There is older software, but also more stable. And if this type of user needs something more modern, he knows that he can look for different options, and even compile it. They will rarely suffer from bug issues that sneak into stable releases and will not have to wait for a future patch. They will just come up at a more mature point.
But I can't stop thinking about those who know little or nothing about Linux, apart from the fact that they want to change because we recommend it. When we invite you to join us (how sectarian that sounds…), we can't just recommend something to you; we have to tell you the pros and cons. For example, if you want something easy to use, something with GNOME, Ubuntu or Fedora if possible because there is also a lot of documentation. If you want to avoid shocks, stick with something based on LTS, but knowing about older software. Why not, you can also talk about Rolling Release distributions to handle all the information.
In any case, certain details are important to know, and I hope I have helped someone who is undecided, especially new users.
Good recommendation. Just today they asked me for a recommendation of distributions for new users and we were discussing this with some colleagues. I'll pass on your article.
“…we can't just recommend something to you; we have to tell him the pros and cons..." In my opinion, that may be the beginning of the error, telling everything and making the new/inexperienced person have doubts about whether this step will be a good option or reinstalling and returning to his previous system on old and familiar #whatever#.
In my opinion, a stable platform with as few errors as possible should be recommended. In those first days we all want the system to work without errors and to recognize everything we connect, if possible the first time, since we already resorted to this new system as an alternative after being dissatisfied with the previous one for whatever reason.
Many users, including myself, are looking a little less at the latest version of everything, focusing less on changing icons and backgrounds, trying to be productive with fewer settings and settings.
In addition, we must take into account the ease of finding software, it is interesting to know that there are distributions where this step is better solved for the general public, since new users may not be very good at opening the terminal and/or googling a bit. The easier it is for everyone, the more happy users.
In short, when you talk about other operating systems at first you don't tell them that they are more or less prone to installing malware, much less that some already officially include advertising among their settings or that they don't respect privacy to the point of Linux , you simply speak of them as a set, a whole. Well, maybe, just maybe here we could do the same, take a distro and not underestimate it just because with respect to the version of its software it is more or less current, and that little by little it is the user himself who arouses his curiosity in case of that you need to take the step.
Thank you, you have helped me. Although I have spent years combining linux and windows, I use more linux for servers.
Well, the desktop part, as you say, LTS or the latest version... is not yet well defined... and I don't know why they don't agree to keep 1 version, say, 20.23 (the year). and on it develop a stable version for everyone. and stop fussing about what if LTS if I have to download dependencies, what if I'm going to install an Elastik I have to see what version if 20.04, 22.04, bla bla ..
In the end, you get bored. You are left with a bare windows 11, with the hack, for installation on old machines, and yes... you have a VM (virtual machine), for testing with linux... or you start ubuntu, in a windows environment.
That's what happens to me, with linux desktops... in the end... you get bored with so many versions and options.
Servers, by God 1 version a year or every 2, with their security updates. that it is not necessary to compete with the versions….