I just got to work and plugged my surface pro into my external monitor. It didn't switch inputs immediately, and I thought "Linux would have done that". But would it?
I find myself far more patient using Linux and De-googled Android than I do with windows or anything else. After all, Linux is mine. I care for it. Grow it like a garden.
And that's a good thing; I get less frustrated with my tech, and I have something that is important to me outside its technical utility. Unlike windows, which I'm perpetually pissed at. (Very often with good reason)
But that aside, do we give Linux too much benefit of the doubt relative to the "things that just work". Often they do "just work", and well, with a broad feature set by default.
Most of us are willing to forgo that for the privacy and shear customizability of Linux, but do we assume too much of the tech we use and the tech we don't?
I just got to work and plugged my surface pro into my external monitor. It didn't switch inputs immediately, and I thought "Linux would have done that". But would it?
Nope. My laptop for example doesn't automatically use an output when plugged in, but that doesn't bother me because I know other DEs would do that, and it's my choice of having a minimal window manager that causes that.
And this goes into your next point, because I know that this comes from decisions I made, I'm okay with that. I also know I could probably fix it somehow, even if just by running a script in the background that checks if an output is plugged and tries to use it.
And for me that's the big difference. As a general rule when things break or don't work are not the fault of Linux as a general, but of a specific piece of the stack, and more often than not it's because that piece was backwards engineered without any help from the manufacturers of the hardware it's meant to be controlling, so I can be very tolerant of these errors since the bad guys here are the third-party who's refusing to make their things work on Linux. But even things that don't work as I want to, I can make them do so, and that's a huge change in viewpoint.
In other words, on Windows I used to be of the thought of things you can do, and things you can't, with time I noticed that in Linux this thought shifted, to the point that the only question I ever ask myself is: "HOW do I do this?". This implies that there are no impossible things in Linux, which is obviously false, but I would argue that the correct way to think about this is "things that are impossible on Linux, for now", and that's a huge difference, because Linux is always evolving and getting better and better, things you thought are impossible now might be trivial in a few months or years whenever someone with the knowledge to fix it gets bothered with it.
In general, I think genuinely that Linux requires a more hands on approach. But the best thing is, I solve a problem ONCE. Then I store the script to git and forget about it. The problem is done, it no longer exists.
Each time I go back on windows I realize it's worse than I remembered, even though I never liked it.
One thing I quickly realized after getting constantly asked for help about issues on windows : people tend to be greatly biased about how reliable it is, mostly because it's all they've known for a long time.
People often talk about compatibility regarding Linux, but are somehow oblivious to all the devices and hardware made for windows that somehow fails miserably to work when it has no good reason to...while Linux, despite most hardware and software not being made with it in mind, can sometimes somehow work wonders.
Windows only «just works» because it's made by a monopolistic monster of a company, with a ton of software and tools and stuff made for it because of how widespread it is, and despite that their OS is just plain garbage..
Just today, I was using windows on my laptop, playing a game made for windows, Black Ops. And it crashes every time I boot up the Call of the Dead. On linux, while it does stutter on that map depending on where i am, I can still play it surprisingly. Its very strange.
Just out of curiosity, aside from the good example posted below by @trslim@pawb.social, could you provide some examples of "devices and hardware made for windows that somehow fails miserably to work when it has no good reason to"? :)
When I've thought about this is in the past I've concluded that my expectations of Linux are actually higher than Windows or Mac. It's given me the expectation that if something doesn't work the way I want it then it will be possible to make it do that, whereas with other operating systems I have been more inclined to just accept a limitation and move on.
I'd clarify that the shear customizability of Linux is optional.
Take a SteamDeck with SteamOS versus a RPi with e.g Debian.
If you "just" play with the SteamDeck and you don't tinker, well, it "just works". In most, even though not all, normal situations, e.g plugging a screen, pairing a BT headphone, mouse, keyboard, etc it is solid. It has no problem even while using a compatibility layer like Proton for games themselves made for Windows. It even enable some tinkering thanks to its immutable OS and let the player switch to desktop mode. Not everything works but my personal experience since it's been out has been pretty much flawless.
Now, take a RPi, with just as stable hardware, with Debian, even stable, and put on it some IoT device, make some weird modifications for it, try a bunch of stuff, remove package, tinker more, chances are it will still work. Tinker more, make stranger modifications to the point it becomes unstable. Is it Linux itself? I'd argue it's not. I'd argue that instead because we CAN tinker we sometimes do then forget that it's not the same context as something expected to run without hiccup because it's been limited to basically the same verified usage.
So... IMHO Linux is even better than it is, we just shouldn't confuse weird (and important) tinkering with how it can be actually used day to day.
After all, Linux is mine. I care for it. Grow it like a garden.
We live in a world where the idea of community has been destroyed by rampant capitalism and the death of third spaces.
While there is indeed a lot to be said for something that "just works," that "just works" demand is borne from a capitalist/consumer process that is literally in the process of going off the rails.
Why do we get so mad at Windows? Because it isn't ours. Microsoft grows it like a weed on our property. Its roots begin sticking out new places all the time ("hey what's that new bullshit on my taskbar?") and has zero respect for your needs as opposed to its needs. Windows only cares for Microsoft's needs, and it makes that readily evident in how you're forced to use it.
Linux is the communal kibbutz, Windows is the corporate city.
In other words, Linux is better than we think it is.
No, because a kibbutz (planned intentional community) would be the "cathedral" in that analogy, and the city (incrementally developed community) would be the bazaar.
Love the image of wheeds just popping up all over your garden where you don't want them.
It's a great metaphor for the "HEY, TRY THIS NEW THING!" shit microsoft pulls.
I like to think of Windows as the Zelda sidekick of OSes.
Non-stop interrupting what you're doing to tell you something you don't need to know or care about, and constant "HEY LISTEN" nags for all sorts of shit that you either already figured out, knew about, or don't give a shit about.
It's an operating system. It's not supposed to be noticed as good or bad. It should stay out of your way. If you ever notice it, it's doing something wrong.
Generally, when things work on windows, it is the effort of whomever made the device or software. Microsoft generally does not develop drivers. However, when things work on GNU/Linux it is the effort of GNU, Linux, or the community. The manufacturer probably did nothing. This simply explains why we are generally relaxed or "give Linux too much benefit of the doubt relative to the “things that just work”".
So fairly comparing a Linux distro to raw windows, Linux is better. When you install a distro, things just work, when you install windows, most stuff do not work and you need to complete setup. Unless you use tools provided by the manufacturer, but then again, it is same story.
Windows works nearly every time any more - I don't have to do anything during setup. Drivers are automatic during setup.
Not sure where you get this idea from.
My Logitech mouse doesn't work at all on Linux unless I search for why and go find third-party software for it. Windows sees it as a generic HID and treats it as such. I can go get the Logitech software if I want, but have no need of it. Linux? Nope. Probably the most prolific mouse on the planet and Linux can't even use it, at all, natively.
That still means third-party drivers, so it's still not a Windows win but rather a "windows is so ubiquitous that Logitech (or whoever) was forced to release a driver for it", which is what the comment you're replying was talking about.
Secondly, bullshit. In my 20 years using Linux I have never, ever, plugged in a mouse that didn't get immediately recognized and worked as expected. What mouse do you have? You said Logitech, which model? The only thing that I ever needed specialized software on a Logitech mouse was to configure extra buttons or to pair it to a different dongle (both stuffs that also need specialized software only provided by Logitech on Windows)
I have the opposite. Old Logitech bluetooth mouse on W10, Windows will pair with it but next boot it totally will not reconnect, no matter what, unless I delete paired device and re-add it. It was fine on W7. Linux has no issue reconnecting to it.
Windows will continue to get more and more user-hostile as time goes on, and they want everyone to have a subscription to Microsoft's cloud services, so they can be in total control of what they deliver to the user and how the user is using their services/apps, and they also will be able to increase pricing regularly of course once the users are dependent enough ("got all my work-related data there, can't just leave").
The next big step that will follow after the whole M365 and Azure will be that businesses can only deploy their Windows clients by using MS Intune, which means MS will deploy your organization's Windows clients, not your organization. So they're always shifting more and more control away from you and into MS' hands. Privacy is always an obvious issue, at the very least since Nadella is CEO, but unfortunately the privacy-conscious people have kind of lost that war, because the common user (private AND business sector) doesn't care at all, so we will have to wait and see how those things will turn out in the future, they will start caring once they are being billed more due to their openly known behavior (driving, health, eating/drinking, psychology, ...) or once they are being legally threatened more (e.g. your vehicle automatically reports by itself when you've driven too fast, or some AI has concluded based on your gathered data that you're likely to cause some kind of problem), or once they are rejected at or before job interviews because of leaked health data or just some (maybe wrong) AI-created prognosis of your health.
So I think there will be a point when the common user will start caring, we just haven't reached that point yet because while current data collection and profile building is problematic because it's the stepping stone to more dystopian follow-ups, it alone is still too abstract of an issue for most people to care about it. Media is also partly to blame here when they do reviews or news about new devices and then just go like "great camera and display, MUST BUY" and never mention the absurd amount of telemetry data the device sends home.
MS is also partnering with Palantir and OpenAI which will probably give them even more opportunities to automatically surveil every single one of their business and private sector users. I think M365 also already gives good analytics tools to business owners to monitor what their employees are doing, how much time they spend in each application, how "efficient" they are, things like that. Plus they have this whole person and object recognition stuff going on using "smart" cameras and some Azure service which analyzes the video material constantly. Where the employees (mostly workers in that case) are constantly surveilled and if anything abnormal happens then an automatic alert is sent, and things like that. Probably a lot of businesses will love that, and no one cares enough about the common worker's rights. It can be sold as a security plus so it will be sold.
So I think MS is heavily going into the direction of employee surveillance, since they are well-integrated into the business world anyway (especially small and medium businesses) and with Windows in particular I think they will move everything sloooowly into the cloud, maybe in 10-15 years you won't have a "personal" computer anymore, you're using Microsoft's hardware and software directly from Microsoft's servers and they will gain full, unlimited, 100% surveillance and control of every little detail you're doing on your computer, because once you hand away that control, they can do literally anything behind your back and also never tell you about it. Most of the surveillance stuff going on all the time already is heavily shrouded in secrecy and as long as that's the case there will be no justice system in the world being able to save you from it, because they'd first need concrete evidence. Guess why the western law enforcement and secret services hunted Snowden and Assange so heavily? Because they shone some light into what is otherwise a massive, constant cover-up that is also probably highly illegal in most countries. So it needs to be kept a secret.
So the MS (and Apple, ...) route stands for total dependence and total loss of control. They just have to move slowly enough for the common user not to notice. Boil the frog slowly. Make sure businesses can adapt. Make sure commercial software vendors can adapt. Then slowly direct the train into cloud-only territory where MS rules over and can log everything you do on the computer.
Linux, on the other hand, stands for independence. It means you can pick and choose what components you want, run them whereever and however you want, build your own cloud, and so on. You can build your own distro or find one that fits your use case the most. You're in a lot of control as the user or administrator and this will not change considering the nature of open source / free software. If the project turns to sh!t, you're not forced to stick with it. You can fork it, develop an alternative. Or wait until someone else does. Or just write a patch that fixes the problematic behavior. This alone makes open source / free software inherently better than closed source where the users have no control over the project and always have to either use it as it is or stop using it altogether. There's no middle ground, no fixes possible, no alternatives that can be made from the same code base because the code base is the developer's secret. Also, open source software can be audited at will all the time. That alone makes it much more trustworthy. On the basis of trustworthiness and security alone, you should only use open source software.
Linux on its own is "just" the kernel but it's a very good kernel powering a ton of highly diverse array of systems out there, from embedded to supercomputer. I think the Linux kernel can't be beaten and will become (or is already) the objective best operating system kernel there is out there.
Now, as a desktop user, you don't care that much about the kernel you just expect it to work in the background, and it does. What you care more is UI/UX, consistency and application/game compatibility.
We can say the Linux desktop ecosystem is still lacking in that regard, always behind super polished and user-friendly coherent UIs coming from especially Apple in that regard (maybe also a little bit by Microsoft but coherent and beautiful UIs aren't Microsoft's strong point either, I think that crown goes to Apple).
That said, Apple is very much alike Microsoft in that they have a fully locked-down ecosystem, so it's similar to MS, maybe slightly less bad smelling still but it will probably also go in the same direction as MS does, just more slowly and with details being different. Apple's products also appeal to a different kind of audience and businesses than MS' products do.
Apple is kind of smart in their marketing and general behavior that they always manage to kind of fly under the radar and dodge most of the shitstorms. Like they also violate the privacy of their users, but they do it slightly less than MS or Google do, so they're less of a target and they even use that to claim they're the privacy guys (in comparison), but they also aren't. You still shouldn't use Apple products/services. "Less bad than utterly terrible" doesn't equal "good". There's a lot of room between that.
Still, back to Linux. It's also obviously a matter of quality code/projects and resources. Big projects like the Linux kernel itself or the major desktop environments or super important components like systemd or Mesa are well funded, have quality developers behind them and produce high quality output. Then you also have a lot of applications and components where just single community developers, not well funded at all, are hacking away in their free time, often delivering something usable but maybe less polished or less userfriendly or less good looking or maybe slightly more annoying to use but overall usable. Those applications/projects could use some help. Especially if they matter a lot on the desktop because there's little to no alternative available.
On the server side, Linux is well established, software for that scenario is plentiful and powerful. Compared to the desktop, it's no wonder why it's successful on servers.
Yes, having corporations fund developers and in turn open source projects is important and the more that do it, the more successful those projects become. It's no wonder that gaming for example took off so hugely after Valve poured resources and developers into every component related to it. Without that big push, it would have happened very slowly, if at all. So even the biggest corpo haters have to acknowledge that in capitalism, things can move very fast if enough money is being thrown at the problem, and very slowly if it isn't. But the great thing about the Linux ecosystem is that almost everything is open source, so when you fund open source projects, you accelerate their growth and quality but these projects still can't screw you over as a user, because once they do that, they can be forked and fixed. Proprietary closed-source software can always screw over the user, no one can prevent that, and it also has a tendency to do just that. In the open source software world, there are very few black sheep with anti-user features, invasive telemetry, things like that. In the corporate software world, it's often the other way around.
So by using Linux and (mostly) open source products, you as the user/admin remain in control, and it's rare that you get screwed over. If you use proprietary software from big tech (doesn't even matter which country) you lose control over your computing, it's highly likely that you get screwed over in various ways (with much more to come in the future) and you're also trusting those companies by running their software and they're not even showing the world what they put in their software.
You make an excellent point. I have a lot more patience for something I can understand, control, and most importantly, modify to my needs. Compared to an iThing (when it's interacting with other iThings anyway) Linux is typically embarrassingly user hostile.
If course, if you want your iThing to do something Apple hasn't decided you should want to do, it's a Total Fucking Nightmare to get working, so you use the OS that supports your priorities.
Still, I really appreciate the Free software that goes out of its way to make things easy, and it's something I prioritise in my own Free software offerings.
I resonate with that point, since I do a digital art/tech class, which uses Macs. I find app crashes and the inaccessibility of certain menus quite infuriating, i even somewhat rage internally for a while until i either quit what i was doing or search it up.
When my 8 year old Fedora laptop freezes, crashes, or sound drivers crash like what happened yesterday, I stay very calm and think of a solution, such as updating and restarting.
even if I haven't built the OS myself or really customised it at all, i find it more calming that i have options to completely change the software compared to locked down OSes.
Sometimes making an iThing (iPhone) work with another iThing (Fiancée ´s Apple TV) isn’t as easy as it should. Streaming the nba app from my phone to the Apple TV was a nightmare a few years ago. Now I just use my PlayStation as the nba is hostile to Linux even in a browser.
So, taking into account the fact that Linux is free and works on almost any hardware, I can only congratulate the people making Linux possible.
Or the purposeful incompatibility between Android/iOS and others.
Like how Google pulled miracast from Android to push Chromecast as the standard. Now I can't stream to an Amazon FireStick even though it's also fucking Android at its core.
A lot of these private companies purposefully put in "pain points" to get you to spend more money in their ecosystems.
The "pain points" in Linux are "you have to learn something."
But that aside, do we give Linux too much benefit of the doubt relative to the "things that just work".
No, I don't think so. There should be an expected difference between Windows (for example) and Linux as far as "it just works" goes, simply by virtue of the fact that one is actively developed by a company with eleventy-bajillion dollars and the other is developed by lots of hobbyists and a handful of profitable companies.
If Windows doesn't work, it's not unreasonable to expect that it should. If Linux doesn't work, it is unreasonable to expect that it always will.
Pls stop giving billion dollar corporations so much credit.
The difference comes from windows dominant (home pc) market position meaning that almost all software and hardware is specifically made to work with it, with even things that officially support linux being afterthoughts.
Additionally much software (and hardware even more) primarely targets windows as a platform.
The way printers mostly "just work"™ on Linux still amazes me, because printer vendors have all the incentives to make their stuff work for the most used platform, which sadly isn't Linux right now.
Seriously, when something that I paid for it doesn't work is annoying when something that I choose to use doesn't work is somewhat my fault, I think that's the difference.
Thing is, a well configured Linux system will just work, and continue to work for the foreseeable future. You have zero guarantee of this with Windows.
After being in tech for like 30 years, i'd say that every OS sucks, but the way they suck and the intensity of said sucking is very much not the same across them. Linux VERY MUCH has issues, yes, but most of the time they're in your power to diagnose and fix, in Windows the main troubleshooting advice has remained mostly the same across decades, the 3 R's, Reboot, Reinstall, Reformat, because many times you just don't know and CANNOT know what went wrong.
I’m in IT too. Recently discussed with the help desk team that we should probably spend less time troubleshooting issues with only the affected device and just re-imaging it.
I am not a massive fan of this since sometimes the fixes are kind of interesting but they take far too long to get to while working around MS’s hidden walls. Mean while our Linux servers and clients are usually pretty damn easy to troubleshoot, documentation is readily available, not to mention it makes sense…
Exactly. I give more credits to linux, and it deserves this. I like your garden metaphor, yes my linux pc is like my garden and linux behaves to be, unlike windows.
I have a reoccurring problem in Linux, happening in both Nobara 39 and 40 as well as Fedora 40. I understand that Nobara is Fedora based.
Sometimes my USB headset just does not detect, at all. Plug it in, no notification sound that it has been plugged in and does not appear as an audio device.
I have tried 3 different headsets and none detect. I have to reboot to solve the issue.
A friend of mine is also running Nobara and also comes across the same issue from time to time. It happened again for me today.
While I like Linux, I would love to stop using Windows and make Linux my main OS… I just cannot. Loads of my games and apps do not work in Linux as well as a lot of hardware control software. It took me ages just to get some software to control my GPU fans and I am unable to control my PC fans. From what I understand my motherboard has no Linux support, I cannot see a single sensor in any software I try. I eventually manually set up fan curves in BIOS.
I definitely does not just work for sure.
Adding my Manjaro experience, not good.
I tried it 3 times, fresh installs but it locks up my PC. If my screens turn off after a set amount of time I cannot wake up my PC. I turned off any sleep/standby/hibernate modes, only the screens turn off. If I head out for lunch and come back, the only way to get back in is to hard reboot.
Or there's a lot of things where it works, but only in the way the developer intended it to.
Just like Apple or MS's approach, but without a UX team to say yes or no; it's just one guy's opinion. Sure most things on Linux are designed to be flexible, but shit's still a pain to find something that works well.
I think about this a lot, and my take is that Linux is waaayyy better if you have perfect or close-to-perfect knowledge of how the operating system works and what software is available. Similarly, I think an argument can be made for Linux being better if all you need is a web browser and you're not using really unusual hardware.
Where things fall apart is for people who have very specific needs that are complex, even if they only need it 1% of the time, and they don't have the technical knowledge to solve it with the power-user tools available. Microsoft has spent decades paying developers to handle these edge cases and ensuring GUI settings discoverability.
At the same time, schools and workplaces have taught people the design language of Windows, and the network effect of having so much of the world's end-user PCs running on Windows means that there are vast resources available targeted at people without technical knowledge. At this point, for better or worse, Microsoft's design language is the global default for non-technical people.
If a person never has to touch a setting because all they need is a browser, they don't hit any friction and they are happy. If they need to do even one thing that requires them to dig into settings or touch the terminal, the difference from Microsoft's design language is enough for that one frustrating experience to give them a bad taste in their mouth about Linux as a whole.
At the same time, schools and workplaces have taught people the design language of Windows, and the network effect of having so much of the world’s end-user PCs running on Windows means that there are vast resources available targeted at people without technical knowledge. At this point, for better or worse, Microsoft’s design language is the global default for non-technical people.
People forget that this was purposeful, too.
Why did Microsoft not do really do anything about pirated Windows in the 1990s?
Because they were banking on the network effect of everyone being used to their operating system. It's part of why they started essentially giving it away in the modern era to end-consumers.
It depends on what you're using it for. Elaborate multi monitor setups? Starting a web server? Controlling a robot? A car's ECU?
Linux isn't a specific platform. Linux the kernel is a generic kernel that can be used and tuned for virtually any hardware. GNU/Linux the OS is also a generic OS that can be customized to work for variety of use cases. The most popular desktop Linux OSes are still very generic. Most of them aren't built to be power efficient on laptops for example. Yet we know Linux can be very power efficient on variety of purpose-built mobile hardware.
Windows on the other hand was built from the start to be a desktop OS. The desktop and later laptop use cases have always been primary. To the point of making other use cases more difficult. The same is true for macOS. So when you see them performing well in some desktop-related use cases where Linux might struggle a bit, it's no surprise. If enough of us wanted it to be better at that, we could make it happen. If enough of us wanted macOS or Windows to do something Apple or MS didn't, tough luck. So it's just a matter of priorities and resources.
It gets old hearing the "Linux is better, Windows sucks" mantra.
They're different things with different use cases.
I despise Linux for a desktop, it's an awful experience, because it hasn't been developed/targeted for what I need to do, and I don't have the time to play fuck-fuck with distros to work something out - I have other shit to do.
Like build and manage Proxmox/TrueNAS boxes, which are... LINUX! Because this is where Linux shines, as purpose-built solutions.
Kinda, however Linux is always better in one regard - we can change it and it generally serves the needs of its users since its users build and change it. Windows and macOS on the other hand serve the needs of Microsoft's and Apple's major shareholders and only in part of their users to the degree they can get away with. The goal is always gaining and retaining market share while extracting the most value from the users - money, data, etc.
If enough of us wanted a sleek, uber smooth desktop that has all UI bases covered, we could totally do it. We just don't give enough shit and we're content with what it is. Case in point, I know multi-monitor support isn't amazing, so I buy a bigger monitor and use more windows. 🥹 Personally I've been content with the mainstream desktop Linux UX since 2012-14. You won't see me digging into features in GNOME or Wayland.
Linux is obviously very good, but you are right, we give Linux a pass sometimes because we 'build' it. We tend to overlook its flaws because we want it to be better than the competition.
I've recently had an upgrade fail to the point of a reinstall, a folder that I can't share between two users on the same laptop, and shutdown buttons on two computers that disappeared. If those problems happened on Windows, I'd be really annoyed, but because they happened on Linux, I just fixed them and carried on.
The Linux kernel is wild and has more features and support than I have seen anywhere else. Everything from namespaces (containers) and virtualization to support for strange serial devices.
I had this exact same thought but than I booted Windows. I get less frustrated because if use Linux I feel like I’m working with it and it is acceptable if there are mistakes. If I use Windows I feel like I’m working against it, and a big part of that is that a lot of issue aren’t there because they are bugs (of which there are probably as many as on Linux) but rather just bad/anti user design
We've been having this discussion in the group I game/ play TTRPGs with. Like 7 of us total all windows, me and another switched to Linux, a third is a computational scientist who is forced to work with redhat frequently, and a fourth member was thinking of switching. After me and member 2 switched, member 4 saw that we had problems (entirely discord for me, all games have honestly worked so far) and changed his mind about switching because he doesn't want to deal with stuff not working OOTB.
I can't fault people who want that, hell I do, Linux is well worth it to me but I will begrudgingly admit there are draw backs to Linux.
Just this morning I tried to make Outlook on my work laptop to open on startup. I have to find and add a shortcut of Outlook, buried somewhere in the machine, to the startup folder, buried somewhere else in the machine. The startup apps settings menu was just an eclectic list of programs and is of no use at all.
With Mint on my home machine I just go to startup programs settings menu and I can add whatever I want just by pointing it to the right program. It just works.
I'm actually kinda surprised that functionality isn't in the new task manager yet. You can toggle on and off basically all startup items from there, but not add stuff.
XP-7 had this right with a folder in the start menu for startup items, just drag a file or shortcut there and it runs on startup.
I think most of us have a good idea of the benefits and drawbacks of Linux/Windows/Apple.
I have a Windows machine for media production, because Linux doesn't support all the software I need for media production. I use Linux for absolutely everything else, because it's better for literally everything else. In truth, a MacBook Pro would be better for media production but they're too expensive.
Well, I don't use a DE so your scenario of the new display not switching over right away is basically my life every time autorandr decides not to run on startup.
The kind of issues you run into “running the Internet” are not the same as the average desktop user. Most of those systems don’t even have a monitor attached, let alone a whole desktop environment or GUI.
Yeah Linux is great for servers hosting websites. That doesn't automatically make it the perfect desktop user interface. I sure as fuck wouldn't want to use a servers interface (ssh on a box a mile away) as my main desktop experience.
Linux to me is just an optional substitute of an OS, but it has yet to make it my primary day-to-day use. Linux isn't going to make the problems I get aggravated with like the verification-hell we deal with, go away. It's going to happen on both Windows or Linux regardless.
I have more patience when I give any laptop I get Linux, than I ever will should I decide to make Linux a primary OS of choice on my primary desktop machine. Because Linux does give me the whole 'works out of the box' feel with laptops than Windows would when it comes to driver hunting and I'm talking with old laptops, not newer ones where all of that is currently provided.
Windows with the proper license and configuration is more stable, more productive, and that configuration takes less than an hour once for the life of the machine.
In 2024 if you're still bashing Windows for BSODs, stability, updates, etc, you're doing it wrong. You can bash all day long for privacy violations and corporate greed but both of those are fixed with the proper version like Windows Enterprise. Costs more, but you are less of the product.
Ah yes, Windows, where you buy a licence for around 100€, still get ads (WTF) and bloatware you cannot get rid of, still are the beta tester for their shitty software, because they fired their QA department. That's on top of a shitty OS that still does not allow multiple users being logged in simultaneously (only in Windows server) and AI shit baked in alongside spying tools (Recall is coming back soon).
Or... Read what I said. Spend the $300 on the enterprise license. No ads. No forced notifications. A single computer with multiple users at one time in a home environment is not a use case that would get any thought. Those that want it, can do it. And it's easy, and free. Hyper-V is free and the licenses for the virtual machines are free too because the container host is windows. Lock an instance per output and voila. Recall won't be coming to enterprise or server and if it does, it will be disablable. Just like forced updates are disabled in enterprise. Forced reboots disabled. Etc.
If you want that experience you buy that experience.
I really wish I could BASH windows 🙂. Per customization, it's a moving target. How TF do I get rid of the icon asking if I like the picture on my desktop? Registry edits? Go F yourself
Clearly that person has never managed a 10,000 pc domain. Or hell, even a 10 pc domain in an SMB.
"The license is worth the cost" - I literally had this conversation with a peer not two hours ago. They have a client who's previous IT management built a domain using Linux. Yes, you can do it, but I'd only do it if your IT is fully in-house and stable. This was an IT vendor. It saved them (the client) licensing...like $250 or so.
Imagine how quickly they're going to burn $250 for a support issue because there's something odd about how the Linux software isn't exactly duplicating a windows DC? Or the next IT vendor doesn't know what you implemented, so have to find out about which packages you used and how they work.
You don't use Linux desktop in a business to save licensing costs, unless you know the use-case inside and out. The first time your business has a need for something that doesn't exist in Linux land, all those savings are gone as you build a virtual host for Windows, and deal with the lost productivity.
And I use Linux every day for things like Proxmox, UnRAID, TrueNAS, etc. Even there the difference between design approaches is really problematic.
Yes exactly. I love Linux. I build embedded systems devices with it. I run it on some of my rack appliances. But I'm also not a blind fan boi.
Windows made leaps and bounds into stability with XP. And since then it's been a slow cog into being an excellent enterprise grade OS even with users bashing it all sorts of ways.
Most (all) of the complaints except price focus on money grabs and features for the docile masses. Forced updates, reboots, integrations, etc. My 80 year old relatives can use it and you know what it works great when they type into the "computer question box". Click start menu and type. It brings up their files, folders, apps, answers to web questions, etc. That makes sense to someone who doesn't understand a computer. It's not pandering to the IT folk, it's pandering to Karen.
If you're IT folk, you can just spend a little more money on the proper license and all that goes away. Or you spend some time hacking the registry and get it for free usually.
The only BSODs I have had in the last decade are graphics driver related usually when pushing beta drivers hard. My Linux OS's have had way more stability issues with less interaction.