this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
138 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37742 readers
494 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have to agree with this. I tried Linux a couple of months ago, and ran into those issues with Nvidia. My computer was reasonably stable in the desktop environment using a particular version of the drivers, so as long as I was happy to never update the drivers and never do anything but email, web browsing, and word processing, Linux would have been fine. If I wanted to play any games or do any digital art or anything else that required my graphics card, it was either unstable or running barely faster than continental drift, depending on which set of drivers I was using.
Like, I do think Linux is pretty cool, but it very much feels like a project for people who have the time and money to continuously tinker with their computer to get it working exactly as they want. It's not there yet on the "it just works no matter what you do" front, which is what the vast majority of computer users need from their operating system. Windows, for all its many faults, is broadly stable and can largely be ignored once it's installed - although I do think it benefits from a reformat every 12-18 months.
I think Linux blows windows out of the water as a server operating system. I've been using it that way for over 25 years now.
For desktop, there's a few problems. First is that the average user cannot install an operating system. So unless it comes pre-installed they're going to be out of luck. The second is that I've not found a distro that won't occasionally just blow itself up on an upgrade. Driver issues, circular dependencies, and all manner of other things that a normal user just doesn't know how to deal with.
Then you get to gaming. Which is WAY WAY better all the time. But, knowing what works and what doesn't, which drivers to use, the best distro that has most of the gaming stuff already sorted for you. Not to mention the Wayland + NVidia issues that people are also talking about here. Also, I've never proven it. But on FPS games it feels like there's just a bit more latency on linux (albeit I think overall most games run smoother on linux).
I think Desktop is still great on Linux. But for mass consumption, it still has a way to go and I do wonder if, while windows exists and is preinstalled on everything if it will ever be more than a niche thing. Most users don't know there's an alternative and for sure would have no clue how to go about installing it.
This is my number one gripe on Linux. It's supposed to be more stable than Windows but the truth is that it's only true if you compare a Linux install you never update to a Windows install which is constantly updating for you, making sure you have the latest security patches automatically, ensuring your system is up to date and ready to use. Sometimes (like 0.1% of the time) Windows gets it wrong and upgrades you to a place where you have to revert the upgrade, but it does so automatically. Like Linux, figure that one out first. The most successful consumer Linux platforms (android, steam deck, etc) all are immutable and software/hardware locked. So they never worry about "oh this person has a Nvidia driver and a Wacom tablet, let's make sure we don't mess up either of those with a kernel update that doesn't include the drivers for those yet."
I think that's the main problem. You could make a Linux distro that works like android and other embedded setups. But it would be locked down to only allow installations from an app store and custom hardware likely not supported with no way to get a kernel update until the distro does it.
That would totally alienate the current Linux userbase who are used to taking a distro, adding their own install sources, compile some stuff from source, upgrading kernel or perhaps also recompiling from source. Sure an upgrade might break things but they know how to fix it.
The two types of user are worlds apart. I think snap/flatpak etc come closer to a way to get windowsesque setups. But again for many experienced users those also sacrifice too much in favour of convenience.
I agree with one exception, in my experience, flatpak just adds a layer of headaches. Things like Steam don't act as they should without configuring them more than I should need to. Which honestly, steam specifically should require zero configuration, you install it, sign in, and you are up and running. Having to muck around with steam play or just getting steam to open from flatpak entirely drives me away from it.
Yeah, my feeling is that if I wanted a server, Linux would be great for that, and if I just wanted a PC for email, internet, word processing, spreadsheets, and the like (ie, a basic office computer), Linux would do just fine too. It's just not stable enough for the huge variety of stuff I need my computer to do.
And if your machine was to be tossed in the trash otherwise, how well do the proprietary drivers operate in the dump?
I might as well have tossed my computer in the trash if I'd kept Linux on it, since I couldn't actually do anything with it.
compare this to your previous statement :
Can it do all these totally normal and useful things or is it trash because you can not do anything with it? What nebulous "stuff I need my computer to do" is linux not stable enough for?
I don't need a server, nor an office desktop. I need something that can play games and do digital art, both of which Linux is not stable enough for, which I stated in my initial post. A computer that crashes every couple of minutes while gaming or doing digital art is not useful for me. Chucking my perfectly good Nvidia graphics card in the bin so I can buy something else that is more compatible with Linux is wasteful. And since starting my degree, I have also determined that about 50% of the software I need to use for group project modules doesn't work on Linux and doesn't have appropriate open source alternatives that wouldn't cause compatibility issues when the files are sent on to other team mates - we've all got to be using the same version of the same software.
So yeah, Linux in its present state doesn't suit my needs.
The real ewaste problem here is not people like me that keep using components until they die from wear and tear, and replace only broken components not entire computers. I'm quite happy to keep using Windows 10 as long as it is compatible with my hardware and software, regardless of whether Microsoft are still supporting it. The problem is the people who throw out perfectly usable computers because the OS is no longer supported.
It is perfect for a poor person that just needs internet and email. But yup, because it didn't meet your use case it is trash. That there is some thinkin'.
Uh, that's not what I said at all. I never once said Linux is trash. Pretty sure one of my posts said it's cool, actuakly. It just wasn't suitable for me. When it was put to me that the options are Linux or throw the computer away due to Windows 10 being end of life, then in that instance (which is not reality), then my computer might as well go in the bin precisely because Linux's inability to run a stable environment with my use case would, in effect, render my computer into a brick anyway.
Fans of Linux seem to think it's suitable for every use case, for every user, and this is simply not the case. The overlap of people that have no specialised needs for their computer (for which gaming, frankly, is one) and also have the knowledge to run Linux without any problems (since they won't be able to fix it when - not if - they get some kind of error) and the knowledge to know which hardware is compatible and which isn't (since the wrong component also renders Linux unstable) is actually very small.
a lot of your contributions to this section of the thread are very needlessly antagonistic. please chill a bit.
I don't get this argument because EoL doesn't mean they can't keep windows 10 on it.