> It's sort of ironic to me that one of the main reasons I like linux on the server - which I use exclusively - is because I perceive it as "just working" in a

> It's sort of ironic to me that one of the main reasons I like linux on the server - which I use exclusively - is because I perceive it as "just working" in a way that MS servers never do. The situation is entirely inverted on the desktop If "just works" is what you're going for, then install a rock-solid distro on the desktop - Debian GNU/Linux, CentOS and OpenSUSE Leap are the ones which are really in the running, IME; Ubuntu LTS is a distant possibility if commercial support or third-party applications are a priority for you - and, just as importantly, accept its limitations. No, it's not going to support the office, music or image-processing apps that you're used to. But there's plenty that it can do, that many, many users will be absolutely fine with. (The fact that so many people are fine with something as incredibly basic as ChromeOS is proof positive of this. A Linux desktop gives you plenty more than that, and you can easily get it to run on extremely cheap hardware that would not manage to run any other modern OS.)