I've never understood people's fixation on installers. Who cares about an application that you use one for a couple hours every 6+ years?

Considering how few people use Linux I'd say quite a bit. I'm thinking of writing an article about it.

I can understand not wanting to deal with a CLI and having to look up what commands to use when trying to install the OS (though I have no problem with having the wiki open on another device, and happily use Arch), but a rolling release is awesome (unless you -for whatever reason- need proprietary graphics drivers and can't use the Mesa-supplied ones). An alternative, if you want the rolling release model is Manjaro, which is based on Arch. OpenSuSE Tumbleweed is another.

Erm... No, AQEMU not alpha. Everything works in it. You just create VM in it, set options and start it up. I have no idea, why dev still resists to release 1.0, probably its about i18n. :)
Thats the spirit :)

I understand what a rolling release is. I certainly don't like it for Windows. There's not really enough rolling releases for Linux distros though. I will say that when it comes to drivers I absolutely do prefer proprietary.

All-right, fair enough. To each their own.

I found this thing called endless os. It's a Linux based OS indeed to working without internet.

Nah, Windows can't boot without internet since version 93 :)

Nixos can do this. Its software and software configuration tree is also immutable. And you won't have to reinstall ever. You can roll selectively, modifying anything. There is corner case where package format is upgraded and then this upgrade is not fetched by your system for such a long time, that if its long gone when you finally decide to upgrade - you´ll have to do some voodoo magic, but people report its possible. Still, full reinstallation is also fully automatic.

Well, of course its easy for engines with an automated porting process---but I know what you mean. That easy was a "quite easy", nothing less, nothing more.

What about when you need to move it to a new computer

Seriously?!? The majority of Linux distro's these days have a GUI installer. Arch is one of the outside cases. This is definitely not the THING that is keeping people from using Linux.

What would your article be? About how it's easier to install Ubuntu than Windows?

It surely isn't. No matter how good the installer is, it will be beyond capabilities of the majority of users. They won't even ever install Windows themselves. They use the OS that's coming pre-installed on their computers be it Windows or Linux - most don't even care. And the minority that's capable of installing an OS on their own can use Linux installers just fine already.

The main barrier is lack of preinstalled Linux sold for mass market. MS is the culprit here.

What about it? Linux kernel handles all hardware changes automatically anyway.

Haha, must be fun! I can't say, because I don't use Windows for a very long time. But I might have to be forced to use it, because of Fallout 4 unavailability and issues with Wine.

Still, I do remember that moving from one hardware configuration to another, for example like when upgrading motherboard+cpu, windows 2k and xp would hang on boot and would require full reinstall. Driver cleaners won't help. Suprisingly, I don't remember Windows 98/95 behaving like this.

But yes, with Linux, I never cared, if it gets past bootloader, it boots on everything.