From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
At this point, Linux or even any given distro isn't the problem. The problem is the software library.
I call it GIMP syndrome. There's a lot of capable and powerful apps in the FOSS ecosystem and most of them have some kind of critical functionality gap or the UX of an Oregon Trail era disease. A lot of them, with the notable exception of GIMP, are actually working on it now.
IMO more people should be critical of the systems and tools that they use instead of shitting on the tools that others choose to use.
We do assume too much of our tools, but many people here are guilty of assuming that other OS's are broken in ways that do not reflect the average customer experience.
This was a lot of what I was getting at. We artificially build our own walled garden. We'll let anyone in just as much as we'll throw turds over the fence. Your shit don't stink if you throw it at someone else
For me it's I can make Linux do this when I see another system perform well, in contrast with they took my vertical taskbar in windows 11 and I have to gut the system to get it back
I do have to remind myself that I'm still used to living in a world where Linux enjoyed immunity to most "consumer" malware just because it wasn't a popular desktop. Ultimately Linux is not more secure than any other system unless someone put in the work to make it that way.
Unix is definitely a less headache than Windows at this point.
Recent Linux convert here. Had some small background with it due to use at work (through WSL, unfortunately 😅). When Windows became too overbearing and intrusive for my own taste, decided to take a plunge and created a dual-boot setup with Bazzite (of course on my private machine). It was honestly refreshing to see stuff run with the same (or sometimes even better) performance.
This short anecdote now leads me to the conclusion; is it as good as we think it is?
Imo: hell fuckin' yeah. It gets the job done and respects me as an end-user (with the trade-off of "some manual work might be required").
Also, as a side-note: I live in the EU; I grew tired with an overbearing, salesman/rapist-like mentality of MS (and Windows, by extension) while reaping benefits of some modicum of privacy regulations. I cannot even begin to fathom how fucked the situation is where ppl don't have these protections to rely on.
I've used DOS, 3.11 to all the way to 11. Switched to Linux as main driver around 2009. Used MacOS at work for over a year now. I occasionally boot into windows for rare game that uses some anti cheat that doesn't play well with wine.
I'm old enough that I just want things to work. I don't care for any fanboyism. These are my opinions:
Windows is a mess. It has different UI from different decades, depending on what and where. NT kernel is ancient. The registry is a horror show. The only edge it has, is third party software, like propriatery drivers. that's it. And that's isn't a merit of windows, but rather market share.
MacOS is inconsistent at every turn. It's frustrating to use, and riddled with UX bugs, and seemingly deliberate lack of functionality. The core tooling, like the file manager, is absolute garbage. The only good thing it has going it, is that the Unix core is solid. In that year, I've experienced a soft brick once, that almost was a hard brick, and the reason was having set the display refresh rate from 120 to 60 Hz. Something I changed BTW, because certain animation transitions in MacOS took twice as long on 120 Hz... Yeah, top notch QA there Apple.
Linux. It has its own flaws. For sure. But as for "just works", it happens so often, that it's exactly why Windows and MacOS feels so frustrating. I'd have my grandmother use Linux.
And, I'm not just saying this. When I upgraded components on windows, I spent 2 hours debugging problems. One of the problems was also that it reverted a GPU driver, where every single version information was unmistakably older. It also made it not work.
I've also experienced that the WiFi network adapter also doesn't work until I download some proprietary software over ethernet cable.
On Linux? I didn't need to do a single thing in either case. It for sure didn't use to be this way. In 2009 I was hunting WiFi drivers for fedora over ethernet. But in the last, say 5 years, on Arch, it's been amazing. Did I mention that I use arch?
Ps: The last 4 times I've had problems on Linux have been:
Linux users are self-selected for increased tech savvy, so they'll say, "Yes, it's the best," but really, the Linux community is still extremely forgiving of terrible user interface, and value things like FOSS over things like apps with robust, accessible feature sets. Linux users are happy to fix functionality holes with writing a shell script, and think nothing of it: it's not a lack in the OS, it's a testament to the power and flexibility of the OS!
I've used a few flavors of Linux, and their GUIs are almost uniformly terrible, only partially functional without using a terminal. For instance, they have various software and OS update apps located in semi-random menu locations, and none of them work as well as "sudo apt update / sudo apt upgrade / sudo apt full-upgrade / sudo apt autoremove". And there's a huge part of the Linux community that thinks this is great and not a problem at all.
Windows hides the ugly sausage-making from typical users, and forces IT folks and other developers to wrangle with it. Linux makes IT/dev lives easier while making typical users somewhat hamstrung if they're scared of a CLI. So, if that has meaning for you with regards to the question "Is Linux as good as we think it is?" then you may have your answer.
Terrible GUI? Microsoft can't even keep their print dialog consistent across their own programs, let alone dealing with different dialog boxes across third party software.
Windows has problems, no doubt. But in terms of surfacing functionality in the GUI, it does it a lot more thoroughly than Linux does.
Not to mention having to know things like what my window manager is, am i running “Gnome” or “KDE” before i download an app in a software store. And on and on. Linux is so much less friendly.
Every print dialogue in Windows, they all pretty much have all the same basic options, called the same things, so that inconsistency isn’t that big a deal.
Yes.
I absolutely hated the feeling of helplessness when I found a problem somewhere, when using Windows.
On Linux, I am happy to give bug reports/ wishlist reports and follow through with them. Maybe even fix something, if I feel like I can. That (and the higher transparency in communication) makes me much more forgiving of problems I may find anywhere.
My experience has been filing a bug on a FOSS app, and having it almost immediately closed because it was a dupe of a bug reported ten years prior which remained open and unfixed. I'm not a programmer, so it's just, "Well, I guess I'm out of luck on this ever being fixed."
I've done a fair bit of UI/UX work in my career, so I have a lot of sympathy for naive users, and FOSS devs mainly do not. If there's some functionality that is only exposed with a command line parameter, well, that's good enough. Read the man page.
sympathy for naive users, and FOSS devs mainly do not
From what I have seen, KDE devs that I interacted with, had a higher tolerance for mistakes, than I would want to have for myself.
I once submitted a wish for Kate, which was also submitted multiple times before and marked as Won't Fix, because: a) low demand; b) nobody to do it.
But when I started trying to implement it, I as given more help than I should have asked for.
So, it's probably just about chance. Don't let a few rejections stop you. If you consider it useful, even if it gets rejected now, someone will see it eventually. And some programmer might find it worth implementing.
Send diff to their lists.
Win 7 was cool to tinker with but buggy as hell to the point Ubuntu was just as much work as the time but with even more possibility.
8 was so bad it was worth skipping.
10 was the peak of it just works for windows. Gone were the days of troubleshooting triple AAA games on my PC, they worked or needed patched by the devs.
That said if I NEEDED something to work choosing windows 10 or server was an exercise is maschocism. Need this container? Unsupported. Need this service configured like this? Gfl finding where that is set. Need HA? Just Ha. Certain network configs beyond basic client? The guys with decades of Windows admin exp still have no idea.
I had to troubleshoot both but windows gives you the nice feeling of being able to say "this sucks they should fix that" because I know ain't. Its not built for me to fix it either. Linux however begs you too. Its all there, you can do anything, even you might not really want to.
When I first transitioned away from Windows. Linux was admittedly a little less stable and reliable but unlike windows, there was a well documented solution pathway to almost every Linux problem I encountered, whereas Windows solutions always amounted to recommending uninstalling/reinstalling hardware in the Device Manager and rebooting the computer. I remember a few times that windows updates completely crashed my install and I had to roll-back to an earlier version or even do a repair/reinstall from disc -The documented Windows solutions (aside from the reinstall) rarely worked. Now it's 20 years later and I rarely have reliability issues with Linux aside from my one hardware failure -but that's not a Linux-specific issue.
All operating systems suck ass. There are problems and issues with all of them. It's the same argument for programming languages. Now it's the same argument when it comes to what brand of vehicle Ford or Chevy.
Don't get hyper focused on a brand, on a label. Simply use what's best for you and your needs.
As an IT guy who has worked at a bunch of companies with exclusively Windows environments, Windows absolutely doesn't "just work."
I can't begin to list all the random problems I have with Windows in my day-to-day job.
Driver problems, hardware compatibility problems, software crashes, OS freezes, random configuration resets, networking issues, performance issues, boot issues, etc etc etc...
New hardware causes problems, old hardware causes problems.
Almost everything is harder to troubleshoot on Windows than Linux.
I have several test servers set up at my current workplace, they are old decommissioned desktops that are 10+ years old. I use them for messing around with Docker, Ansible, Tailscale, and random internal company resources like Bookstack and OpenProject.
All run Linux, all are a head and shoulders more stable and functional than the majority of much newer and more powerful Windows machines at our company.
Debian, Mint, CatchyOS, they all are far more dependable than most of the Windows machines. They install fast, on any hardware I use, decade+ old Quadro cards and Intel CPUs, doesn't matter, they all run nearly perfect. And the rare times I have an issue, it's so much faster to figure out and fix in Linux.
I switched over one of the computers in our department to Linux Mint. Threw it on a random laptop I had laying around. I did it just as an experiment, told the guy who was working on it to let me know if he had any issues using it. I planned on only having it out there for a week or two... It's been 4 months and he loves it.
He says it's super fast and easy to use, he doesn't have any problems with it. Uses Libre office for documents, Firefox for our cloud-based ERP system, Teams and Outlook as PWAs installed on Mint.
I use Ansible to push updates to it once a week, Timeshift in case something ever breaks. It's great. About a month ago I told him I would probably need to take it back because technically, it wasn't an official deployment and the experiment I was doing had long since passed. He put up such a fuss that I decided to just let it stay. I'll probably clone the drive, put it on his old tower, and take the laptop back, and let him keep using it indefinitely.
Linux absolutely isn't perfect, no technology is. But in my years of experience with both, Linux on the whole is far less finicky, and far easier to fix when it breaks.
The only thing holding me back from asking for an Ubuntu laptop at work is email certificates that we need to install on windows for outlook. Otherwise I'd love to be able to switch
They don't even let us install wsl2, so annoying
I did something similar with 4 15 year old optiplexes for a student lab. IT wasn't happy until the saw how well they ran
It's pretty incredible how well it works. I installed Arch with Plasma 6 on a 2015 T450 thinkpad and it was so crazy how fast everything was.
Felt like a brand new machine, almost a decade old, and bottom of the line specs for that model, but it still ran cutting edge Linux like it was meant to.
My other desktops are even older, but it's the same with Debian 12 and Plasma, they are super responsive and stable. It's pretty wild to see a desktop that's over 10 years old feel smoother and snappier than Windows 11 on a 3 year old, enterprise grade laptop.
Linux absolutely isn't perfect, no technology is. But in my years of experience with both, Linux on the whole is far less finicky, and far easier to fix when it breaks.
I agree 110% but it's also worth mentioning that windows isn't as finicky as we complain about. If it was, companies wouldn't by and large rely on it. People are delusional if they think Windows is only around because of some conspiracy or historical precedent. "It works" plain and simple. As you scale you're going to run into issues regardless of the OS. It's naive to think Linux is the be all that end all. As much as anyone I want to be Linux only. My home computers have been Linux for decades now. I'm a realist. There's value and challenges with every OS. I hate the industry trend of Windows over Linux but I get it
It's important to acknowledge that desktop Linux was much jankier even 5 years ago. I don't think Windows 7 & Windows 10 would have been worse experiences on average than desktop Linux back in their heyday.
But times have changed pretty drastically. Desktop Linux has improved massively across the board. With so many applications going into the cloud and becoming web-based in recent years, Linux is more viable than ever.
Combine that with the fact that Windows 11 has become so bloated, so clunky, and just straight up unpleasant to use and maintain.
Historical precedent makes a big difference too. When an OS is dominant for so long, the ecosystem around it morphs to fit.
People are raised using Windows, go through school and college using Windows, get a job where their apps are all on Windows. Companies write software for their largest install base...which is Windows. And because the vast majority of companies and orgs use Windows, the IT ecosystem is based around managing Windows systems.
I worked at an MSP a few years back where almost every sysadmin there was far more experienced than me, I was the greenhorn. But when one of the sysadmins had their client's Xen hypervisor go down, they called me because, "We heard you're a Linux guy." At that point, I had less than 3 years of Linux experience at all, and had almost zero actual Linux admin experience, I only used it personally and as a hobby. But I fixed their issue in less than an hour, got their client's Xen hypervisor running which their entire ERP system ran on, all because I knew enough Linux basics to figure out what was going on.
Point is, people tend to become experts in what they use all the time. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Microsoft experts and admins are a dime-a-dozen where I live, but Linux/Unix admins, I rarely see a job posting that isn't offering 20-40k more for people with those skills.
At my current company, roughly 50% of folks could be switched over to Linux without any issue. Their jobs all require basic document editing, email, Teams, and web browsing. All tasks that desktop Linux can handle now with zero issues.
No, not even close.
I've used Unix systems for years at work, and have dual-booted windows with various flavors of Linux at home for just as long. When I just need something to work, particularly something new or after a stressful day at work, I just use windows.
Why? Because it will just work. Maybe it won't work precisely how I want it to, maybe it will send all my data to Bill's push notifications, but it will run. In the rare case it doesn't, a quick google will fix it.
Compare that to Linux, where most things will work most of the time. And when they don't, you get to hunt through GitHub issues off-the-clock like a peasant, wading through comments from people with entirely different configurations and 'dunno it works for me'.
Linux is for tinkerers, and for people who want a Unix shell and can't afford a Mac, it has a long way to go to be more than that.
Or it won't just work, and there will be likely exactly 0 log files to use for troubleshooting since Event Viewer sucks ass
Linux isn't the best for every usecase, but its good enough for mine. Plus, the community around Linux is actually nice outside of the strange elitism here and there
For privacy and security? Yes. For usability? Noooo.
Actually, if Linux/BSD/... doesn't work the way I want it to, I can always tweak it. Win or Mac? Tough luck. So Linux's usability is always there, whereas the proprietary OS's quickly hits a very hard, annoying wall.
Are you using 2005 Gentoo or something?
Things don’t just work on any operating system.
With Windows, you have to hope there’s a solution that you can implement that doesn’t require rooting around in the insanely-outmoded registry and doesn’t require uninstalling some specific KB12345678 update.
With MacOS, you will do as Apple says, and you will like it. Otherwise, enjoy the $3000 doorstop. Granted, there is plenty you can tweak, but when there is a problem, and you find some Apple Communities post with a copy/paste official reply that has steps to take, none of which ever actually solve the problem, you will be treated with a cheeseburger on your way to the insane asylum. Full disclosure: a MacBook Air is my daily work driver.
With Linux, you are in charge — for better and for worse. This means that when there is a problem, while there is likely a solution, it will depend on many, many factors such as hardware configuration, kernel version, desktop environment, graphics card, display manager, etc. But, you can fix it with research and perseverance with no company getting in the way.
The main difference with Linux, is that you are given the freedom to deal with problems as you see fit.
So, yes, to me, Linux is as good as I think it is — not because it’s better or more stable (though subjectively I would say it is), but because it respects us by keeping the ownership and power where it belongs.
Linux is as good as Linux is, just as Windows is as good as Windows is and MacOS is as good as it is.
All operating systems have their place, purpose, and use cases, so the question is subjective. Different OS's are good or bad for different people, and different scenario's which is why they all have a part of the market share.
MacOS has ease of use and excellent intercompatibility with other Apple products, and Windows has boatloads of compatible software and compatibility with Microsoft's Active Directory domains in businesses.
What Linux has is cost effectiveness and true ownership and control.
At the moment most people prefer ease of use for home computing, but on a long enough timeline Linux will obtain this as well, just look at what Valve did with SteamOS and the steam deck when it comes to that. Making it easy to use there is, I suspect, one of the major reasons the steam deck as a device is so well reviewed, and partly why we have seen such an increase in market share recently I suspect.
So right now, most people probably prefer another OS because of ease of use, but at some point in the future, Linux will probably be holding all the cards. It just seems that those who develop the distributions are often tied up with other goals apart from ease of use for the common user in the contemporary, but eventually they will begin to tackle this goal as well.
Nah, still has a lot of bugs, it simply don't have the same money that Microsoft has to fix quirks in certain hardware, and it's too fragmented, Microsoft knows what kernel that interface gonna run, KDE don't so they always need to fix for different kernels
Microsoft has features, not bugs.
Really though, I've had less issues running KDE than Win11 by a longshot. The drivers have also just worked for all my hardware. My Win11 can't figure out Bluetooth.
As a person with a full time job, a significant other, and several hobbies, I just don't have time to invest in learning a new operating system. I grew up with windows (95, 98, xp, 7, 10), so that's what I'm familiar with. I recently switched to linux (mint), and it's fine. Just getting started though is something that was rather involved, and I would never expect a normie to be able to figure out. If microsoft wasn't insisting on making win11 a dumpster fire, I wouldn't have bothered. Now that things are running smoothly, there's some minor annoyances that I'd really like to change, and the prevailing sentiment from the linux community is "that's just how linux is" or sometimes "here's a hacky workaround that barely works in only certain controlled cases". It's better than it was 10 years ago, so there is that.
I just don't have time to invest in learning a new operating system.
That's fair. I got turned on to Linux in college so this is how I feel when confronted with Windows or Mac devices. I just get so frustrated every time I try, and it doesn't seem like the end result is worth it if I can just stick with what works and not have to worry about some random update radically and inexorably altering how my computer works.
I switched when the learning curve of navigating changes to settings menus and how to save files on my local drive became steeper than learning a new OS altogether.
Switched to linux with ububtu, had good experience until snap Firefox became default.
Switched to arch linux with i3 wm through some random installer. Struggled a lot and couldn't understand anything. Watched a few videos on manual installation and got basic idea like systemd, compositors, etc. Followed wiki and youtube videos to manually install again and never looked back.
Currently using arch linux with hyprland and quite happy with my setup. I don't think I can use any other distro as a user cause aur is so good.
I really struggled with learning about how to learn linux things. Like nvidia drivers, kernels, etc. Once there are enough people documenting their experience I think linux will be very easy. Endeavor, mint, kde plasma, now upcoming cosmic should be user friendly.
growing it like a garden is a perfect phrase imo
because on windows or Mac it may have just worked. ..until it doesn't, or leaves your windows scaled wrong or placed on monitors that don't exist or some other failure condition. at which point you reboot and hope for the best.
when it doesn't work on Linux I'd check logs, actual configuration, and even the source if I need to.and then I'd hopefully improve things and make it work the way I want it to.
Depends what you want in an OS. The increasingly invasive ads and loss of control in Windows is overwhelmingly a good enough reason for me. But it is not the case for everyone.
Linux has its quirks, and it's a different approach to an OS in general, so it can be intimidating if you only want an office machine.
As a newbie in this space, I had interactions with a few distros over the years and lately switched (hopefully) permanently.
My first experience was with Mint 10 years ago. Installing it would cause some GPU driver defect (AMD card) and would turn the whole login screen into an epileptic checkerboard pattern with no way of doing anything. It took me a few reinstalls and a ungodly amount of googling to find a solution which involved opening the terminal at boot process. You can only imagine how frustating that can be for a newcomer.
Later in time I had Ubuntu on my laptop which had a bug that wouldn't spin up the CPU fan and it would simply overheat and shutdown. I had to take it to a technician to find out what was causing the random shutdowns.
A year ago I decided to try Debian on my desktop PC as many have praized it for it's rock-wolid stability. It didn't want to work on my PC. No internet connection and some weird bugs. Took me two-three days to get ti to work and I still don't know what exactly fixed it as I have applied every possible solition I came across.
Much later, aka now, I decided to go with Bazzite on my desktop as many have claimed excelent support. I wanted to install the mimalloc because I play Factorio a lot and a few reddit posts claimed 20% UPS improvement over the stock scheduler. After downloading the source code and following the 4 very easy steps, cmake would throw some random eerors at me claiming some critical files were missing, although they were right there in the usr directory. Turns us Bazzite some some issue and Fedora 40 compiled the code in seconds without any issues.
Conclusion: Linux users, which are very tech savvy or work in that space, know what to do when things don't work out, while the rest of us keeps googling and crying over error messages for things that seem trivial. You never seem to know if it's you, the system or your hardware.
It's something we'll take for granted. With enough time and experience, you could fire off a one liner to fix a problem in less than a minute. For most people thst could take an hour, and they'd probably give up within 10 minutes