Linux

I could never go back to Windows, after having tasted the freedom of Linux.

Enough with the fan wars. Let's be perfectly honest for once. Windows, Linux, MacOS - they all suck. Sometimes in similar ways, sometimes in different ways. But they all suck.

Windows users - I get you, you use it because it sorta works 40%, of the time and sucks in the way you understand.

Linux users - I get you, you know all of the arcane incantations you need to quickly install, update, and troubleshoot your os in a terminal window. It works - once you apply your custom bash script that applies every change you need to get everything exactly how you like it. But again, it sucks in the way you understand.

MacOS users - well I don't really get you. You know what you've done.

We deserve better than this, guys. We deserve an os that just works, is easy to use, easy to configure, doesn't require an IT degree to use, and that we can recommend to our grandma without a second thought.

Windows: "We dropped support for that thing you bought brand new 5 years ago"

Linux: "We are considering dropping support for something that has existed for longer than you had"

I've worked exclusively with Linux servers since 2002 and exclusively Linux desktop since 2004 and I've come to the point where I prettyuch refuse to touch windows for fear it will infect me somehow.

I know most people don't know any better but it's insanity to me that anyone still pays money for windows. It's a scam, no other words for it.

Don't even get me started on Windows servers. It's just sad to see how much money is spent on a company that has so litte focus on quality.

Even the online services suck. Dear God Microsoft, would it kill you to understand that people might have gasp TWO tabs open with your teams "app"?

Windows requirements: sprawling list of unsupported hardware based on an arbitrary requirment for a security chip that doesn't actually improve security at all

Linux: CPU (optional)

I like Linux a lot, but saying you can't understand why someone would run Windows on a server just shows a lack of knowledge. Linux is great in a lot of server applications in the application realm. However, it doesn't get close to the power of Active Directory and Group Policy for Windows device management. Besides that, a lot of people are more comfortable with a UI for managing DHCP, DNA, etc in a SMB environment. Even if they prefer a command line for those tools PowerShell allows those people to coexist with those that prefer a GUI. Under certain circumstances, (mainly ones where a business is forgoing AD for AAD), Linux can be the right choice. Pretending that there's no place for Windows Server, though, is asinine.

I upgraded my Intel system to AMD today. And I didn't have to reinstall a damn thing, because my existing Linux installation Just Worked™. It really is to the point that I could never imagine going back to Windows.

I was flirting with Linux for 20 years. There was always something that put me off an I went back to Windows. Recently I installed ubuntu with Kde plasma and I'm not going back. It just works and is heaps faster on older hardware. The old driver issues are gone, compatibility is awesome. The only issue is getting used to new software names.

Everyone acts like nvidia support on linux is completely broken. I game with nvidia on mine regularly and have never had a driver bug.

You know, I've been using Linux on desktops and laptops for like 20 years now. I can count on one hand then number of times I've had hardware support issues. Outside of a fingerprint scanner, I've been able to solve all of those issues.

Meanwhile, my adventures across the years dealing with Windows drivers led me to finally say "fuck it" earlier this year and nuke the Windows install on my gaming rig in favor of Nobara.

I'll take Linux hardware support over Microsoft any day of the week.

Linux will run on anything

Ps3. Raspberry pi. Phones. All computers ive ever tried to install it on.. and even M-chip macs.

Wha? Even a bleeping potato can run Linux nowadays, with zero issues at day 1.

t. Got a Orange pi zero 3, and the lil' bastard is rocking solid -- even with (near zero) support.

They have a point. I'm in the market for a new laptop and I have, so far, returned two of them.

First, I tried a Huawei Matebook 16. I was foolish, but I thought it was "easy". No NVidia, no dGPU at all - just part that looked very standard. It was based on the info I had gathered from a few years of Linux usage: "Basically avoid NVidia and you're good". It was anything but. Broken suspend, WiFi was horrible, random deadlocks, extreme slowness at times (as if the RYZEN 7 wasn't Ryzen 7-ing) to become less smooth than my 5 year old Intel laptop, and broken audio codec (Senary Audio) that didn't work at all on the live, and worked erratically on the installed system using generic hd-audio drivers.

I had a ~€1500 budget, but I raised it to buy a €1700 ThinkPad P16s AMD. No dGPU to speak of, sold with pre loaded Linux, boasting Canonical and Red Hat hardware certifications.

I had:

• Broken standby on Linux
• GPU bugs and screen flickering on Linux
• Various hangs and crashed
• Malfunctioning wifi and non working 6e mode. I dug, and apparently the soldered Wi-Fi adapter does not have any kind of Linux support at all, but the kernel uses a quirk to load the firmware of an older Qualcomm card that's kinda similar on it and get it to work in Wi-Fi 6 compatibility mode.

Boggles my mind that the 2 biggest enterprise Linux vendors took this laptop, ran a "thorough hardware certification process" on it and let it pass. Is this a pass? How long have they tried it? Have they even tried suspending?

Of course, that was a return. But when I think about new laptops and Windows 11, basically anything works. You don't have to pay attention to anything: suspend will work, WiFi will work, audio and speakers as well, if you need fractional scaling you aren't in for a world of pain, and if you want an NVidia dGPU, it does work.

Furthermore, the Windows 11 compatible CPU list is completely ~~unofficial~~ arbitrary, since you can still sideload Windows 11 on "unsupported" hardware and it will run with a far higher success rate than Linux on a random laptop you buy in store now. Like, it has been confirmed to run well on ancient Intel CPUs with screens below the minimum resolution. It's basically a skin over 10 and there are no significant kernel modifications.

To be clear: I don't like Windows, but I hate this post as a consumer of bleeding edge hardware because it hides the problem under the rug - most new hardware is Windows-centric, and Linux supported options are few and far between. Nowdays not even the manufacturer declaring Linux support is enough. This friend of mine got a Dell XPS 13 Plus Developer Edition, and if he uses ANY ISO except the default Dell-customized Ubuntu 20.04 audio doesn't work at all! And my other friend with a Dell XPS 13 Developer Edition has various GPU artifacts on the screen on anything except the relative Dell-customized Ubuntu 20.04 image. It's such a minefield.

I have effectively added €500 to my budget, to now reach an outrageous €2000 for a premium Linux laptop with no significant trade-offs (mostly, I want a good screen and good performance). I am considering taking a shot in the dark and pre ordering the Framework 16, effectively swaying from traditional laptop makers entirely and hoping a fully customized laptop by a company that has been long committed to Linux support will be different.

Linux does support more CPU architecture (x86 Arm PowerPC RISC) while Windows only support x86 and some Arm CPU so technically Linux support more CPU but Windows does support more GPU and Plug and Play devices (controller, external sound card...)

More important IMO is the fact that Linux re-detects hardware on every boot! Try moving a Windows hard drive to completely new hardware and getting it to boot. Not a chance...

Active directory and it's integration with services such as DNS and DHCP is pretty great though. I wish Microsoft started focusing less on cloud and improved the user (or rather admin) experience of their server tools, they are quite awful is some cases.

I know hardware compatibility has massively improved, but back when I was messing with Linux in high school compatibility was a huge issue. I managed to end up with two laptops and some desktop hardware that were truly difficult to get running. It's like I somehow found a list of incompatible hardware and chose the worst options.

The most frustrating were an evil Broadcom (I think) wireless card and an AMD switchable card (they did actually make a few). That graphics card wasn't supported for very long and was a bother even in Windows.

Edit to add: I was just saying that to point out why some people might have that opinion, even if it isn't valid anymore. I'm actually thinking of jumping back on the Linux bandwagon.

To be fair, Nvidia support on Linux has been historically quite poor, with users having to manually install drivers (something the average person shouldn't have to think about). Though even that has gotten much better recently, with Debian now allowing forks to have proprietary drivers built in.

Ah yes... it is easy as long as you do something difficult first.

Reminds me of that comment on Dropbox where some guy said it's going to fail because he can easily build something similar with an ftp server.

Surely we can admit that Linux is ready for general population on the desktop? It's the better choice overall, but the barrier to entry is very high.

Edit: I mistyped and missed the word "not". It's "not ready for general population on the desktop". Sorry guys.

I want to use Linux at the desktop, but I want HDR and Freesync support. Not sure if Linux supports either in a big way.

Linux has better support for the long tail of hardware. Windows has better support for bleeding-edge hardware. The main reason for this is money.

Blows my mind that anyone would use windows.