I've been using Linux on my laptops and servers for years, but finally switched my desktop computer to Linux a few weeks ago. It was my last computer not running Linux.
I had played around with Gentoo years ago but decided on Arch. It has been great. I'm using Suckless software and it is easier than ever with Bakkeby's flexipatch system to try out all the different patches.
Admittedly, it isn't for everyone. Most people I know (including devs) don't care to go relatively deep into the bowels of their OS, but I've enjoyed it and now have an extremely responsive setup that I'll use for years.
I consider it an investment, it isn't going to spy on me or change out from under me. It feels tailor fitted to me in how it does everything I want it to, but nothing more (or less).
I'm tired of the bullshit I've had to deal with on Windows over the years. This time, enough is actually enough. I'm out and not coming back. 2022 is the year of the Linux desktop, for me anyway.
Suckless Term for the win; it's my terminal emulator of choice when I don't need a scrollable buffer. It's light and fast while supporting all the standard escape codes. If that weren't enough, the source is a minimalist masterpiece.
The endless discussion of pros and cons of Linux desktop and whether this is the year get tiring. Only so much can be said. It’s definitely getting closer and for a lot of setups is perfectly serviceable, but for business and ecosystem reasons it doesn’t really matter.
What I’m more fascinated by here is:
A) the situation on windows is so bad that even the most engaged/supportive people (the type of person who writes for Windows Central) are fed up and trying to move. This is a big deal. Microsoft should notice, if anything just so working on Windows doesn’t become an embarrassing job they have to pay engineers extra to do. But also because wow, they have screwed that product bad over the past 10 years. Imagine if DaringFireball, or Jason Snell, or any 9to5mac contributor was writing “2022 is the year I’m giving up Mac for Windows”
B) the comment section is fascinating. I don’t really understand it. I wish I could meet some of these people in real life. There is a real, almost religion-like defense of Windows. I don’t get it. I’ve been a windows fanboy in the past so I get having a slightly irrational appreciation for it, but I can’t imagine ever writing anything like that. I was still playing around with Linux and still playing around with macOS (before it was called that of course) and iPhone and all the other things. I don’t have much insight, but I hope others do.
According to the about page, Windows Central is the home for “the most loyal and passionate Microsoft fans” which certainly seems to be true. https://www.windowscentral.com/about
"There is a real, almost religion-like defense of Windows."
Likewise on Linux and macOS for that matter. Every aspect of IT have fans of varying degrees from "I use it as a tool" to "I can't imagine anyone using anything other than X".
Fact of the matter is that people try these things with a very non-scientific mindset, as such they are strongly affected by confirmation-bias. So when they switch OS, they are likely talk about things they feel personally affect them, and there is no way you can disagree with them, because it is their personal perspective.
>> Gaming is no longer one of those reasons to choose Windows over Linux unless it's a specific game that simply isn't native or supported by tools like Proton.
Uh...yeah it is. Even if I didn't have a specific game in mind currently, every PC game targets Windows. Not every game works on Linux. Why would I artificially limit myself, both for existing and future releases?
In fact, just looking at ProtonDB...6 out of the top 10 games are 'borked' on Linux. The top 100 looks better, but the majority still aren't "native".
That's not a sleight on Linux; there are plenty of things it is better at. But unless you are willing to be limited in what you can play, a PC gamer will continue to pick Windows.
> Uh...yeah it is. Even if I didn't have a specific game in mind currently, every PC game targets Windows. Not every game works on Linux. Why would I artificially limit myself, both for existing and future releases?
Because that's what "specific game" means.
There exist far more games than anybody has time to play, even if you limit yourself to the subset that are actually good. If you have time to play 20 games and there are 100 good games each of similar quality and 40 of them run on Linux, who cares about the other 60? You didn't have the time anyway.
It only matters if you need those specific games.
On top of that, many of those games will also run on a game console. Between a Linux PC and a game console, you have to have some pretty specific needs to actually require a Windows PC anymore.
As a data point - as a longtime Linux user, I hadn't tried Linux Gaming for a very long time until recently. On a fresh machine, I installed POPos, Lutris, Steam and a few other things I forget.
I've yet to find a game that didn't work. Triple-A stuff too. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I've yet to find it. I'm guessing there's a performance hit but that's just a guess - I haven't seen it.
By far the most challenging was Assetto Corsa which took an hour of installing sequential versions of Dotnet, but even that works flawlessly now. Including a Driving wheel, pedals, etc. (Logitech 920).
Seriously -- Steam/Proton/Vulkan has come such a long way.
Instructional: Install Steam.. goto Settings.. then "Steam Play". Turn on Steam Play and install Proton (either Experimental or the Latest non-Experimental). Lutris (for GoG) will instruct you on needed Wine.
>In fact, just looking at ProtonDB...6 out of the top 10 games are 'borked' on Linux.
You have a point but also if you switch the type of games there from "All Games" to "Single Player", situation changes a lot. So I'd say for the group of people who don't play multiplayer games much (like myself) gaming on Linux is pretty viable. The problem nowadays is more with anti-cheat than comparability.
> Why would I artificially limit myself, both for existing and future releases?
> But unless you are willing to be limited in what you can play, a PC gamer will continue to pick Windows.
A lot more people are willing to be limited in what they can play. 10 years ago, it wasn't anywhere near 6/10 -- and in my case, all of the major titles I play (20k~ steam hours) except for one have worked perfectly fine on Arch; no longer a Windows user after 20+ years.
Not to mention a lot of indie games are released native to Linux and there's so many choices compared to 20 years ago, that I would just skip the game for something else if it's not at least Proton compatible.
> In fact, just looking at ProtonDB...6 out of the top 10 games are 'borked' on Linux.
This is almost all due to incompatibility of the anticheat software with Linux. There might be improvement on this front very soon because Valve wants them working on the Deck.
I've been using linux as my daily driver for well over a decade and it's been great. I stopped giving a crap about games. I'm not trying to be a Linux salesperson here but I'm not going to use some crappy OS just because of games.
Yeah, if you are into games and not just a few specific ones then Windows is still it. Linux has gotten a lot better in this regard, but you will always be missing out on something you want to play.
Software compatability is Windows primary selling point. Well, that and it being the OS that is bundled with almost every new PC.
I don’t mind Windows 10/11 as much as others. The “house” ads for their own products are an annoyance, but I accept that as it being largely free. I think it is better than anything Microsoft has ever put out.
XP gets a lot of love, but it had a terrible default UX and was so insecure it spawned the antivirus industry. I don’t really understand when people look back on the halcyon days of Windows, because it was a second rate OS more often than not. My memory of XP was it being severely out classed by both Linux and OSX, but as is the case now, though to a lesser extent, Windows had the software compatability.
Not to mention there are entire categories of games, not just particular titles, that are not supported on Linux and might never be. I'm a sim racer and without high quality drivers for my gear it's a total non starter, even if the games were supported (they are not). Then there's the competitive gaming scene where most serious anti cheat systems are not supported in Linux and may never be.
> Then there's the competitive gaming scene where most serious anti cheat systems are not supported in Linux and may never be.
Hopefully the bit where Valve is working with anti cheat makers actually comes to fruition and works widely:
Online games that make use of anti-cheat software didn't play ball with Proton,
but Valve has been working with the developers to add support for its set of tools.
Now, you can install and enjoy games that use tools like BattleEye and not need to
fire up a Windows install to just play one game every so often.
I don’t game. Pop_OS! for work, Manjaro at my own laptops (framework atm), ubuntu on servers. For me the last 3 years have been the years of linux. Used to be on macos before that, windows even before that. I’m looking forward to the linux on the phone now, hopefully will happen over the next few years.
Edit: and gnome everywhere, for some reason the simplicity/no need for customizability really chimes with me.
I wish Linux worked on my main work laptop, but with the current state of nvidia prime its just a non starter. I spent 3 days trying to get even basic graphics switching going when in windows its seamless
Same journey here. Mac vs Linux is like living in a hotel vs living at home. On Mac, everything is designed but you can't bring your own furniture. On Linux, you have to do the dishes but there is no external agenda. It's simply yours.
Where I have ended up after the above 25 years is Debian + i3wm. Rock solid, a good fit for my daily work (mostly coding web apps), minimalistic and very productive through keyboard shortcuts. Can highly recommend.
Ubuntu is just one of the many distros derived from Debian; some apps even share the same repositories. If you're familiar with the apt package manager you could jump straight back to Debian without noticing much differences, although you may have to spend some time to configure your desktop manager of choice (XFCE for example defaults to absolutely ugly settings). On Debian you can choose among Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Mate, LXDE, ... during install but any of them plus others can be installed afterwards, and if you change the desktop manager after installing applications, that won't be a problems since all will inherit the applications menu and some other customizations. The user can also use a different desktop manager at each login, but that integration is true also for any other Linux distro.
If you don't care about changing package manager, however, I've found Manjaro to be really clean and easy to set up. It appears to have "a bit less knobs" than Debian, but they do their work nicely: very good for desktop applications.
If you're ever interested in trying it out again, the MATE desktop environment is an up to date fork of Gnome 2. Most distros should have a version available with it. I believe ubuntu has one.
It might be worth your time to try `xubuntu-desktop`. Like my sibling comment says, it's not pretty, but it is highly functional and avoids the Gnome-esque candy to which you allude.
> "One of the most enticing parts of Linux is choice. Even down to the distribution (or distro) you'd prefer to use, be it Ubuntu, Arch, or Manjaro. There's a distro for everyone and even after choosing one, it's possible to customize it to your heart's content."
The blessing and the curse of Linux.
All that selection is not helpful if you just need to get work done.
Which is why most use macOS or Windows.
Infinite flexibility also means infinite time researching and making choices.
Granted, my experience is from 15+ years ago, but I remember wanting to play an MP3 on my new Linux desktop. Most articles explained, with a straight face, that I "just" needed to re-compile my OS to get audio output.
I realized then, that this would not be a productive way to get serious work done day-to-day.
I've been hesitant to go back since.
In my opinion, to get the majority of developers to switch to desktop Linux, it would need to become an OS that most of today's proponents will dislike. It would need to have a dominant desktop distribution -- 60%+ market share of Linux installs -- so that most tutorials, software installations, and configuration options are optimized for it. It would need to eliminate 80% of the choices. It would need to handle 99% of desktop use cases with zero configuration. And finally, any configuration that is needed would need to be simple settings that can be configured via a GUI, with configuration via shell there only for those who want it.
Note: The above numbers are just guesses. But hopefully they illustrate the point.
The average knowledge worker, just needs to get work done. And that tends to trump infinite flexibility and openness.
Until that is done, I fear desktop Linux will remain an OS for OS hobbyists.
I love the idea of switching to Linux, but have a really hard time jumping back into the rabbit hole.
> Granted, my experience is from 15+ years ago, but I remember wanting to play an MP3 on my new Linux desktop. Most articles explained, with a straight face, that I "just" needed to re-compile my OS to get audio output.
Honestly, unless you're talking about the early 1990s, this should never have been your experience. Ever.
> It would need to have a dominant desktop distribution -- 60%+ market share of Linux installs
Ubuntu.
> It would need to eliminate 80% of the choices. It would need to handle 99% of desktop use cases with zero configuration.
A driving philosophy of GNOME, which Ubuntu uses by default.
> And finally, any configuration that is needed would need to be simple settings that can be configured via a GUI, with configuration via shell there only for those who want it.
Difficult to tell what's fully meant here, but since both Mac and Windows fail spectacularly at this requirement too, I imagine it's probably not actually that big of a deal.
>> And finally, any configuration that is needed would need to be simple settings that can be configured via a GUI, with configuration via shell there only for those who want it.
>Difficult to tell what's fully meant here, but since both Mac and Windows fail spectacularly at this requirement too, I imagine it's probably not actually that big of a deal.
Not OP, but I use MacOS, Windows, and Linux (Debian & Fedora based) frequently. While finding how to configure obscure things is not intuitive for any OS, Linux faces the frustrating problem that different distributions require different solutions. Thus, Linux doesn't get the luxury of an answer that consistently works on all distributions and desktop environments. Mac and Windows can get pretty ugly (cough especially Windows), but I find that solutions are much quicker to find online comparatively. This doesn't even touch on the pains of NVIDIA graphics cards on Linux, but I digress.
I completely agree. Linux users tend to be extremely tolerant of endless configuration and maintenance, and support for gimped software (no pun intended).
Gimp is not a suitable replacement for photoshop, it's clunky in comparison.
Libre Office inter op with another collaborator using docx files can lead to wonky formatting problems.
Gaming is still clearly better on PC.
There are constant little problems, like screen share drawing not being available on Slack for call participants running linux.
My Manjaro VM was failing to update, and the feedback online is to fresh install and that Manjaro sometimes has trouble updating if you wait too long between updates. I've had many issues like this trying to get linux stable, and I agree with what you suggest that there needs to be "the distro".
It's also frightening that so many solutions for linux problems involve entering obscure terminal commands found from stack overflow or somewhere. I want to be able to easily use my OS without hitting google all the time.
Personally I have been having a great experience with Windows 10 + WSL2 ubuntu, and can even target and build against both platforms from VSCode. It's the best of both worlds.
Windows and Mac has flexibility too. You could pay for software on Windows/Mac and find it doesn't meet your needs. Often many software vendors for Windows end up selling something akin to spyware.
Really what it comes down to is what distro you choose, and audio hasn't been an issue for probably 10 years. Recent changes with Pulse Audio and then Pipewire makes audio "just work".
You have to also remember that both Mac and Windows don't come without pain points and often I see people that are "set in their ways" simply because they don't like change, not because Windows/Mac makes things inherently easier. I personally find at this point Linux to be easier to get things done quickly. For example, with Windows installing the OS and then multiple updates, then re-configuring settings to disable telemetry, online account notifications, driver update shenanigans where Windows reverts drivers, etc takes far longer. Once you have a good dotfile setup on Linux things are a breeze.
Windows unattended setups are just as frustrating. With Linux, everything is scriptable in a more common sense fashion from my experience. With Windows, depending on the tool you have to use Powershell, VBScript, Batch, or some half-baked EXE to get things done.
It's weird to feel so away of those issues, I don't do any gaming, my entertainment is usually spent learning esoteric programming languages, or customizing my .emacs or generally customizing my system.
I see a lot of back and forth between "switchers" and a lot of it is about "gaming". I am guessing there is a silent majority who don't necessary care about gaming and are happy using linux just because it's (imho) the best system for programmers/tinkerer?
Gaming still isn’t ok on desktop Linux. Drivers can be 10% less performant or game-specific drivers arrive a month after the game. That’s enough to need a windows partition.
If one means “I can play 90% of games” or “I can play games at 90% the performance” or “I can play games but no recent multiplayer AAA titles” etc. then yes it’s a viable platform. But you need a big bag of ifs.
While there is great progress bringing gaming to Linux, it’s more and more looking like it’s going to make the bulk of games better while the biggest titles get even further from parity.
Reasons include
1) to play a AAA title you need a specific graphics driver built for the game where nVidia and AMD have made fixes and optimizations for the specific game. On windows this driver is obviously released in tandem with the game
2) An anticheat for a multiplayer FPS these days is a kernel level driver or more and more resembling a root kit. Not only are these not existing on Linux half of the time, the same type of person who prefers Linux usually doesn’t approve of these things being on their systems either.
So: gaming on Linux has advanced in the broad middle of games. Lots of titles now play “ok”. But is gaming on Linux really any closer to being a windows replacement if the biggest titles are still completely windows exclusive?
Everything here about gaming on Linux was also true of macOS in the past. For some AAA games this can still be true--e.g. some games have macOS versions that come out later than the Windows one?
One thing that's very clear is that gaming on macOS is very much better than it used to be. Any game that wants to be big will run on macOS, this part didn't used to be true. Windows still has the lion's market share of gaming but macOS has enough to be relevant, and even more mindshare.
We are currently in the days of Linux being a 2nd class platform for games. This is improving and will keep improving. Gaming on Linux is the best it's ever been. Not only is the freedom/openness of Linux good for gamers it's also good for game publishers in the abstract or long run--no third party that makes arbitrary rules.
So, we really have a choice here, we can say this is how it is and resign to it and use the platform of least resistance, or we can vote with our feet, dollars, and effort, and use something that can be be better. I'm not judging, I've used and continue to use multiple OSes, as it is certainly true that no single one can do everything you want.
As I'm writing this, I realize that I also use Android rather than iOS, not because it's better but because it's closer to being free-er. Linux has come a long way. Linux on desktop used to be as obscure as the phone OS/platforms that are not iOS or Android.
Thanks for making me rethink things through. I'll still use multiple OSes but with a clear commitment about which I use for what. And I'll reconsider my choice of phone platform. Maybe it's not unreasonable to use two--a phone and a small tablet?
I used to, 25 years ago, do “game AI” for Nintendo games, and I still enjoy having strong Chess and Go programs to play, but I have mostly fallen out of spending much time on games.
A few things have changed that: having an Oculus and an Oculus 2, and also getting Apple’s Arcade Games as part of the Apple meta family bundle. I now find myself spending 1 to 2 hours a week very much enjoying games. It is good to be back.
I've got 18 titles that I've played on Linux in the last 3 weeks since I left Windows. 11 in steam, some are via proton and some have native clients, the other 7 are installed via Lutris/Wine.
I've noticed performance problems in 1, an MMO that is notoriously unoptimized; I had performance problems with it on Windows, too.
I have a 2080 and I'm not pushing ultra high settings, so YMMV, but so far, so good over here. I do not see myself going back to Windows anytime soon.
After all, they won't support my "ancient" i7, so I'm not the one who ended this relationship.
I think the disconnect in the debate here is that many Linux users would happily tweak a little bit or give up 5-10fps in order to run Linux.
So when they say “no problem” it could mean that it runs at 100% the windows perf, or 90%. (Or even above in some cases, although more rarely).
They wouldn’t know and most wouldn’t care. It runs fast enough because they see other positives with using Linux (freedom, cost, control, integrity, whatever).
But for users who really dislike Linux the problem is much more nuanced. I’m no big windows fan either - but I’ll pick the platform with the 10% higher FPS any day. With a 2080/3080/3090 one pays pretty good money for those last 10% perf after all.
Your point 2 is what actually terrifies me. If Steam tries to push rootkits on my Linux machine, I'll uninstall it immediately and will be heartbroken.
Hopefully they make all the "anti-cheat" software optional though. Here's to hoping.
Readit News
I had played around with Gentoo years ago but decided on Arch. It has been great. I'm using Suckless software and it is easier than ever with Bakkeby's flexipatch system to try out all the different patches.
Admittedly, it isn't for everyone. Most people I know (including devs) don't care to go relatively deep into the bowels of their OS, but I've enjoyed it and now have an extremely responsive setup that I'll use for years.
I consider it an investment, it isn't going to spy on me or change out from under me. It feels tailor fitted to me in how it does everything I want it to, but nothing more (or less).
I'm tired of the bullshit I've had to deal with on Windows over the years. This time, enough is actually enough. I'm out and not coming back. 2022 is the year of the Linux desktop, for me anyway.
What I’m more fascinated by here is:
A) the situation on windows is so bad that even the most engaged/supportive people (the type of person who writes for Windows Central) are fed up and trying to move. This is a big deal. Microsoft should notice, if anything just so working on Windows doesn’t become an embarrassing job they have to pay engineers extra to do. But also because wow, they have screwed that product bad over the past 10 years. Imagine if DaringFireball, or Jason Snell, or any 9to5mac contributor was writing “2022 is the year I’m giving up Mac for Windows”
B) the comment section is fascinating. I don’t really understand it. I wish I could meet some of these people in real life. There is a real, almost religion-like defense of Windows. I don’t get it. I’ve been a windows fanboy in the past so I get having a slightly irrational appreciation for it, but I can’t imagine ever writing anything like that. I was still playing around with Linux and still playing around with macOS (before it was called that of course) and iPhone and all the other things. I don’t have much insight, but I hope others do.
According to the about page, Windows Central is the home for “the most loyal and passionate Microsoft fans” which certainly seems to be true. https://www.windowscentral.com/about
Likewise on Linux and macOS for that matter. Every aspect of IT have fans of varying degrees from "I use it as a tool" to "I can't imagine anyone using anything other than X".
Fact of the matter is that people try these things with a very non-scientific mindset, as such they are strongly affected by confirmation-bias. So when they switch OS, they are likely talk about things they feel personally affect them, and there is no way you can disagree with them, because it is their personal perspective.
Uh...yeah it is. Even if I didn't have a specific game in mind currently, every PC game targets Windows. Not every game works on Linux. Why would I artificially limit myself, both for existing and future releases?
In fact, just looking at ProtonDB...6 out of the top 10 games are 'borked' on Linux. The top 100 looks better, but the majority still aren't "native".
That's not a sleight on Linux; there are plenty of things it is better at. But unless you are willing to be limited in what you can play, a PC gamer will continue to pick Windows.
Because that's what "specific game" means.
There exist far more games than anybody has time to play, even if you limit yourself to the subset that are actually good. If you have time to play 20 games and there are 100 good games each of similar quality and 40 of them run on Linux, who cares about the other 60? You didn't have the time anyway.
It only matters if you need those specific games.
On top of that, many of those games will also run on a game console. Between a Linux PC and a game console, you have to have some pretty specific needs to actually require a Windows PC anymore.
I've yet to find a game that didn't work. Triple-A stuff too. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I've yet to find it. I'm guessing there's a performance hit but that's just a guess - I haven't seen it.
By far the most challenging was Assetto Corsa which took an hour of installing sequential versions of Dotnet, but even that works flawlessly now. Including a Driving wheel, pedals, etc. (Logitech 920).
Seriously -- Steam/Proton/Vulkan has come such a long way.
Instructional: Install Steam.. goto Settings.. then "Steam Play". Turn on Steam Play and install Proton (either Experimental or the Latest non-Experimental). Lutris (for GoG) will instruct you on needed Wine.
You have a point but also if you switch the type of games there from "All Games" to "Single Player", situation changes a lot. So I'd say for the group of people who don't play multiplayer games much (like myself) gaming on Linux is pretty viable. The problem nowadays is more with anti-cheat than comparability.
A lot more people are willing to be limited in what they can play. 10 years ago, it wasn't anywhere near 6/10 -- and in my case, all of the major titles I play (20k~ steam hours) except for one have worked perfectly fine on Arch; no longer a Windows user after 20+ years.
Right.
If your starting assumption is "games meant for Windows just don't work on Linux", then you'll be surprised by just how much Proton supports.
This is almost all due to incompatibility of the anticheat software with Linux. There might be improvement on this front very soon because Valve wants them working on the Deck.
Software compatability is Windows primary selling point. Well, that and it being the OS that is bundled with almost every new PC.
I don’t mind Windows 10/11 as much as others. The “house” ads for their own products are an annoyance, but I accept that as it being largely free. I think it is better than anything Microsoft has ever put out.
XP gets a lot of love, but it had a terrible default UX and was so insecure it spawned the antivirus industry. I don’t really understand when people look back on the halcyon days of Windows, because it was a second rate OS more often than not. My memory of XP was it being severely out classed by both Linux and OSX, but as is the case now, though to a lesser extent, Windows had the software compatability.
Hopefully the bit where Valve is working with anti cheat makers actually comes to fruition and works widely:
Dead Comment
Edit: and gnome everywhere, for some reason the simplicity/no need for customizability really chimes with me.
I used Windows for 10+ years and was very comfortable.
I felt, more and more often, that I was losing control.
Things were changing without my consent.
So I tried Mac, and it was good for a while.
Then, things also changed without my consent.
So I switched to an OS where I have more control.
I tried one distribution and WM and then another.
Until I found a combination which works for me.
And now I am content.
Thank you, GNU.
Thank you, FOSS.
I am so grateful.
Where I have ended up after the above 25 years is Debian + i3wm. Rock solid, a good fit for my daily work (mostly coding web apps), minimalistic and very productive through keyboard shortcuts. Can highly recommend.
Maybe the lesson is not using Ubuntu.
Dead Comment
The blessing and the curse of Linux.
All that selection is not helpful if you just need to get work done.
Which is why most use macOS or Windows.
Infinite flexibility also means infinite time researching and making choices.
Granted, my experience is from 15+ years ago, but I remember wanting to play an MP3 on my new Linux desktop. Most articles explained, with a straight face, that I "just" needed to re-compile my OS to get audio output.
I realized then, that this would not be a productive way to get serious work done day-to-day.
I've been hesitant to go back since.
In my opinion, to get the majority of developers to switch to desktop Linux, it would need to become an OS that most of today's proponents will dislike. It would need to have a dominant desktop distribution -- 60%+ market share of Linux installs -- so that most tutorials, software installations, and configuration options are optimized for it. It would need to eliminate 80% of the choices. It would need to handle 99% of desktop use cases with zero configuration. And finally, any configuration that is needed would need to be simple settings that can be configured via a GUI, with configuration via shell there only for those who want it.
Note: The above numbers are just guesses. But hopefully they illustrate the point.
The average knowledge worker, just needs to get work done. And that tends to trump infinite flexibility and openness.
Until that is done, I fear desktop Linux will remain an OS for OS hobbyists.
I love the idea of switching to Linux, but have a really hard time jumping back into the rabbit hole.
Honestly, unless you're talking about the early 1990s, this should never have been your experience. Ever.
> It would need to have a dominant desktop distribution -- 60%+ market share of Linux installs
Ubuntu.
> It would need to eliminate 80% of the choices. It would need to handle 99% of desktop use cases with zero configuration.
A driving philosophy of GNOME, which Ubuntu uses by default.
> And finally, any configuration that is needed would need to be simple settings that can be configured via a GUI, with configuration via shell there only for those who want it.
Difficult to tell what's fully meant here, but since both Mac and Windows fail spectacularly at this requirement too, I imagine it's probably not actually that big of a deal.
>Difficult to tell what's fully meant here, but since both Mac and Windows fail spectacularly at this requirement too, I imagine it's probably not actually that big of a deal.
Not OP, but I use MacOS, Windows, and Linux (Debian & Fedora based) frequently. While finding how to configure obscure things is not intuitive for any OS, Linux faces the frustrating problem that different distributions require different solutions. Thus, Linux doesn't get the luxury of an answer that consistently works on all distributions and desktop environments. Mac and Windows can get pretty ugly (cough especially Windows), but I find that solutions are much quicker to find online comparatively. This doesn't even touch on the pains of NVIDIA graphics cards on Linux, but I digress.
Gimp is not a suitable replacement for photoshop, it's clunky in comparison.
Libre Office inter op with another collaborator using docx files can lead to wonky formatting problems.
Gaming is still clearly better on PC.
There are constant little problems, like screen share drawing not being available on Slack for call participants running linux.
My Manjaro VM was failing to update, and the feedback online is to fresh install and that Manjaro sometimes has trouble updating if you wait too long between updates. I've had many issues like this trying to get linux stable, and I agree with what you suggest that there needs to be "the distro".
It's also frightening that so many solutions for linux problems involve entering obscure terminal commands found from stack overflow or somewhere. I want to be able to easily use my OS without hitting google all the time.
Personally I have been having a great experience with Windows 10 + WSL2 ubuntu, and can even target and build against both platforms from VSCode. It's the best of both worlds.
Really what it comes down to is what distro you choose, and audio hasn't been an issue for probably 10 years. Recent changes with Pulse Audio and then Pipewire makes audio "just work".
You have to also remember that both Mac and Windows don't come without pain points and often I see people that are "set in their ways" simply because they don't like change, not because Windows/Mac makes things inherently easier. I personally find at this point Linux to be easier to get things done quickly. For example, with Windows installing the OS and then multiple updates, then re-configuring settings to disable telemetry, online account notifications, driver update shenanigans where Windows reverts drivers, etc takes far longer. Once you have a good dotfile setup on Linux things are a breeze.
Windows unattended setups are just as frustrating. With Linux, everything is scriptable in a more common sense fashion from my experience. With Windows, depending on the tool you have to use Powershell, VBScript, Batch, or some half-baked EXE to get things done.
I see a lot of back and forth between "switchers" and a lot of it is about "gaming". I am guessing there is a silent majority who don't necessary care about gaming and are happy using linux just because it's (imho) the best system for programmers/tinkerer?
If one means “I can play 90% of games” or “I can play games at 90% the performance” or “I can play games but no recent multiplayer AAA titles” etc. then yes it’s a viable platform. But you need a big bag of ifs.
While there is great progress bringing gaming to Linux, it’s more and more looking like it’s going to make the bulk of games better while the biggest titles get even further from parity.
Reasons include
1) to play a AAA title you need a specific graphics driver built for the game where nVidia and AMD have made fixes and optimizations for the specific game. On windows this driver is obviously released in tandem with the game
2) An anticheat for a multiplayer FPS these days is a kernel level driver or more and more resembling a root kit. Not only are these not existing on Linux half of the time, the same type of person who prefers Linux usually doesn’t approve of these things being on their systems either.
So: gaming on Linux has advanced in the broad middle of games. Lots of titles now play “ok”. But is gaming on Linux really any closer to being a windows replacement if the biggest titles are still completely windows exclusive?
One thing that's very clear is that gaming on macOS is very much better than it used to be. Any game that wants to be big will run on macOS, this part didn't used to be true. Windows still has the lion's market share of gaming but macOS has enough to be relevant, and even more mindshare.
We are currently in the days of Linux being a 2nd class platform for games. This is improving and will keep improving. Gaming on Linux is the best it's ever been. Not only is the freedom/openness of Linux good for gamers it's also good for game publishers in the abstract or long run--no third party that makes arbitrary rules.
So, we really have a choice here, we can say this is how it is and resign to it and use the platform of least resistance, or we can vote with our feet, dollars, and effort, and use something that can be be better. I'm not judging, I've used and continue to use multiple OSes, as it is certainly true that no single one can do everything you want.
As I'm writing this, I realize that I also use Android rather than iOS, not because it's better but because it's closer to being free-er. Linux has come a long way. Linux on desktop used to be as obscure as the phone OS/platforms that are not iOS or Android.
Thanks for making me rethink things through. I'll still use multiple OSes but with a clear commitment about which I use for what. And I'll reconsider my choice of phone platform. Maybe it's not unreasonable to use two--a phone and a small tablet?
A few things have changed that: having an Oculus and an Oculus 2, and also getting Apple’s Arcade Games as part of the Apple meta family bundle. I now find myself spending 1 to 2 hours a week very much enjoying games. It is good to be back.
I've noticed performance problems in 1, an MMO that is notoriously unoptimized; I had performance problems with it on Windows, too.
I have a 2080 and I'm not pushing ultra high settings, so YMMV, but so far, so good over here. I do not see myself going back to Windows anytime soon.
After all, they won't support my "ancient" i7, so I'm not the one who ended this relationship.
So when they say “no problem” it could mean that it runs at 100% the windows perf, or 90%. (Or even above in some cases, although more rarely). They wouldn’t know and most wouldn’t care. It runs fast enough because they see other positives with using Linux (freedom, cost, control, integrity, whatever).
But for users who really dislike Linux the problem is much more nuanced. I’m no big windows fan either - but I’ll pick the platform with the 10% higher FPS any day. With a 2080/3080/3090 one pays pretty good money for those last 10% perf after all.
The true AAA titles made by indie developers come surprisingly often with Linux support.
And there is always Stadia and Geforce Now.
Then again, I am not the Hardcore gamer I used to be in the golden days...
I still play BF4 and it’s still a great game - but even that 7 year old title is of course impossible (as far as I know) to play on Linux.
Hopefully they make all the "anti-cheat" software optional though. Here's to hoping.