Looking at it are a lot more questionable things about EasyOS than dropping ISOs. For a distribution that claims to be "easy" it makes even my head hurt as a power user, I can't imagine it being easy for the average user.<p>> This is controversial, however, it is just a different philosophy. The user runs as administrator (root), apps may optionally run as user 'spot' or in containers as a "crippled root" or user 'zeus'. The practical outcome is that you never have to type "sudo" or "su" to run anything, nor get hung up with file permissions.<p>This is a horrible idea. It's not a "different philosophy", it's just incredibly dumb and insecure, especially if you're trying to market your distro to the average user. It's even worse than Windows. Using this logic, why don't they do `chmod -R 777 /` then? See how ridiculous that sounds? Exactly my point.<p>They're basically just doing some buzzword marketing by saying "we support containers!" but it doesn't say if any services <i>actually</i> run in containers by default. And even if they do, the default setup is still extremely insecure, making users run every command as root by default.<p>> No systemd, and it is also worth noting what else Easy does not have: policykit, pam, pulseaudio, avahi. The Dunfell-series doesn't have the Qt libraries, but that may change.<p>I can understand not having systemd, for me it's both a blessing and a curse. But the lack of PAM will break a lot of things like Google Authenticator/TOTP and YubiKey support. Arguably, most average users won't need those (though IMO 2FA should be more normalized), but then again as I've already said the "EasyOS" name seems to be self-contradictory, demanding a bunch of things that power users may be fine with but average users will just get confused by.<p>> When someone boots up Easy, they will see that the menu (bottom-left of screen) is totally different from what they are accustomed to. Ditto the folder hierarchy. The thing is, keep an open mind -- it is very easy to adjust, and there are solid reasons for the differences.<p>Again, if you're trying to market to the average user this is nonsensical and just serves to confuse them even more. Sure, power users may be able to adjust more easily, but then don't call it "EasyOS".<p>> Ditto. The kernel-assigned names for drives and partitions are retained. For example drive sda and partition sda1.<p>Which distribution actually does this? I'm aware of it being done for network interfaces, but I haven't seen such a thing for drive names yet. (That said, I do believe that the new "predictable" network interface names are stupid and just cause more issues than they solve. Maybe it works well to ensure consistency if you have two network cards, but the whole thing falls apart as soon as you change the hardware.)