4 ms·

So you’re saying Linux will crash frequently (1-2 times per day) with an RX 5500 XT? It shouldn’t be that hard to track someone down with that card to see if t

by bogwog 5y ago

So you’re saying Linux will crash frequently (1-2 times per day) with an RX 5500 XT? It shouldn’t be that hard to track someone down with that card to see if that’s true. Not that I think you’re lying, but you seem convinced that it’s the card’s fault while it could be something else. Also, > My experience is that desktop Linux is only tolerable (stable) in a VM or on extremely conservative hardware. That conclusion is not supported by anything you’ve written. All you can say is that, based on your limited testing (and many assumptions), the RX 5500 XT linux drivers were unstable at some point last year. For the record, I’ve been using desktop linux (Kubuntu) for the past 6~7 years with an Nvidia GTX 980 with zero issues whatsoever. I use it for both gaming and work, and never had the system crash on me. I even upgraded the CPU/Mobo/RAM and GPU (originally had a 970) during that time without any issues. No need to reinstall linux or anything ridiculous like that. It just worked as expected. And when I eventually decide to upgrade again, I’m extremely confident that I wont have to do a reinstall either, or worry about system stability because in my experience, Linux is very stable and has excellent hardware support.

handrous 5y ago
I've run Linux on lots of machines over a lot of years. It was my main desktop (well, laptop) OS on two devices over an ~8-year span, even. I don't think, based on fairly extensive personal experience, it's had a great position compared with Windows, on the stability and ease-of-maintenance dimensions, since Win7 came out and that OS got way more stable (arguably, since one of the service packs of XP, I forget which one—2, maybe?—whipped that OS into pretty decent shape, or maybe since 2K if we're allowing non-home-targeted versions). I'm not a Windows fan at all, but it's gotten far more stable while Linux in my substantial experience hasn't made much progress on stability, in a desktop OS context, specifically, where applications crashing with greater frequency or the windowing system crashing count against a platform, not just blue-screens and kernel panics. Major distros also have a bad habit of backsliding temporarily, but significantly, on stability with upgrades when major subsystems are changed out, in a way and to a degree that Windows and, say, macOS, do not (this is not a claim that those never have issues of this sort, mind you, they're just less frequent, less severe, and less long-lived, typically), and the alternatives are to use slow-changing distros that leave you hunting for sources for modern software to run on them when you need it, or stuck on old kernels without newer hardware support, or rolling distros, which are their own special stability risk. Meanwhile, most of the progress Linux has made on the desktop in the last 15ish years as far as features is lame, unhelpful-at-best GUI churn (to be fair, macOS and Windows are guilty of plenty of this, though not as much) and stuff that macOS and Windows already did better (very ordinary and basic wifi use not requiring you to learn yet another command line tool for something that's two clicks in a point-n-drool interface on other operating systems, stuff like that). Hell, one feature I'm now very interested in, which is X-Window-style remote applications (as are others, see: remote-Chrome-as-a-service as a business model) is stagnating tech that's on its way out, on Linux, not something the community is running forward with as a differentiator.

by bogwog 5y ago

handrous 5y ago

I've run Linux on lots of machines over a lot of years. It was my main desktop (well, laptop) OS on two devices over an ~8-year span, even. I don't think, based on fairly extensive personal experience, it's had a great position compared with Windows, on the stability and ease-of-maintenance dimensions, since Win7 came out and that OS got way more stable (arguably, since one of the service packs of XP, I forget which one—2, maybe?—whipped that OS into pretty decent shape, or maybe since 2K if we're allowing non-home-targeted versions). I'm not a Windows fan at all, but it's gotten far more stable while Linux in my substantial experience hasn't made much progress on stability, in a desktop OS context, specifically, where applications crashing with greater frequency or the windowing system crashing count against a platform, not just blue-screens and kernel panics. Major distros also have a bad habit of backsliding temporarily, but significantly, on stability with upgrades when major subsystems are changed out, in a way and to a degree that Windows and, say, macOS, do not (this is not a claim that those never have issues of this sort, mind you, they're just less frequent, less severe, and less long-lived, typically), and the alternatives are to use slow-changing distros that leave you hunting for sources for modern software to run on them when you need it, or stuck on old kernels without newer hardware support, or rolling distros, which are their own special stability risk. Meanwhile, most of the progress Linux has made on the desktop in the last 15ish years as far as features is lame, unhelpful-at-best GUI churn (to be fair, macOS and Windows are guilty of plenty of this, though not as much) and stuff that macOS and Windows already did better (very ordinary and basic wifi use not requiring you to learn yet another command line tool for something that's two clicks in a point-n-drool interface on other operating systems, stuff like that). Hell, one feature I'm now very interested in, which is X-Window-style remote applications (as are others, see: remote-Chrome-as-a-service as a business model) is stagnating tech that's on its way out, on Linux, not something the community is running forward with as a differentiator.