3 ms·

I don't think linux is ready for prime time. My latest experience trying this on a framework laptop was not pleasant and involved 3 installs in short successio

by zeagle 5y ago

I don't think linux is ready for prime time. My latest experience trying this on a framework laptop was not pleasant and involved 3 installs in short succession. So I installed Fedora. I find it doesn't have a tray to minimize icons into due to a conscious design decision going forward. Unfortunately two obscure pieces of software that I use require this: steam and seadrive. Well shit. I find some tweaks that enable this, most don't, and after half an hour I can get it to show a tray. I install keepassxc from their app store and it can't open my database or key file because the file browse window doesn't seem to open. I also have issues with seadrive but plugging in a external usb mouse solves it and I realize I can't right click wit the touchpad. So I wipe it and try Manjuro. Taking care not to destroy my windows partition which is the default option it boots fine. I update everything and the wifi card no longer shows up in settings. I mean I can lsusb, find it with dmesg but it has errors.. After an evening of tinkering and trying suggestions online ranging from changing windows power settings to editing config files to installing older drivers nothing can get it to work. No reasonable consumer would be into this. So I wipe it and install Manjuro again. Everything the same and it works after updating so I chalk it up to a failed update. This is on a laptop basically designed to run linux with a small set of possible hardware. Plus to boot, I am happy I printed my bitlocker key because windows refused to initially boot with secure boot now disabled.

betwixthewires 5y ago
Manjaro. But yeah, Windows is designed like the author said for people that use word and outlook and excel. So if you don't need much but the usual buttons to click it just works. But it's so limited. It's designed to just work for the broadest user set, and over the iterations has been honed for that user set, if you're a power user of a machine it's too limiting. Linux is freeing, but that usually means a little rocky start and some setup. Once that's done though, you've got it made. You won't be clicking through a bunch of dialogs and GUI stuff, unless you really want to. "Linux isn't ready for prime time" isn't exactly right, it's not for prime time. Like all free software, it is for people who can get utility out of it, no more, no less.
- zeagle 5y ago
  I agree with you there! I do think the risk of an update breaking your setup is much more likely than with macos or a windows machine.
gtf21 5y ago
> I don't think linux is ready for prime time. I still don't really understand why people say this, but it made me a little worried when making the switch from macOS two years ago. My experience has been incredibly smooth. I run arch on a System76 Lemur Pro and, for the most part, this has been the most problem-free system I've ever used. I had some kernel issues at some point which were solved by just keeping the kernel version back until the bug was fixed. By contrast, I never had that option on macOS when something stopped working or became annoying. I have a number of colleagues who use various flavours of ubuntu on different machines (Dell, Lenovo, etc.) and do almost no configuration and they seem to be perfectly happy (with a small exception: compositor issues when sharing screens on zoom, but that seems to be it).
- gtf21 5y ago
  I've thought about why this has been the most stable system experience for me, and I think it comes down to simplicity: my linux system just has far fewer moving parts than my mac did (I can read the process list and mostly understand everything that's running at any given time). I think the main problem is that the simplicity of my system comes from the fact that I have set up each part of it, by hand, to do exactly what I want it to do, which is definitely _not_ realistic for the majority of users (for whom a mac is considerably easier to set up, even if less stable).
  - zeagle 5y ago
    I think you have answered your own first post's question with the second paragraph of this post. I also gave pretty concrete examples in my original, downvoted post of how a using a laptop that was designed to run well with linux more or less out of the box based on hardware choices still falls short. I'm happy your transition was smoother than mine!
- zeagle 5y ago
  I am happy to use linux and run a VPS and a basement server with some of my posting history describing my projects. The reality is it needs constant tinkering and I think most of us don't realize it the same way someone that has a hobby of fixing up their old car doesn't realize they spend many hours in the garage.

by zeagle 5y ago

betwixthewires 5y ago

Manjaro. But yeah, Windows is designed like the author said for people that use word and outlook and excel. So if you don't need much but the usual buttons to click it just works. But it's so limited. It's designed to just work for the broadest user set, and over the iterations has been honed for that user set, if you're a power user of a machine it's too limiting. Linux is freeing, but that usually means a little rocky start and some setup. Once that's done though, you've got it made. You won't be clicking through a bunch of dialogs and GUI stuff, unless you really want to. "Linux isn't ready for prime time" isn't exactly right, it's not for prime time. Like all free software, it is for people who can get utility out of it, no more, no less.

zeagle 5y ago
I agree with you there! I do think the risk of an update breaking your setup is much more likely than with macos or a windows machine.

gtf21 5y ago

> I don't think linux is ready for prime time. I still don't really understand why people say this, but it made me a little worried when making the switch from macOS two years ago. My experience has been incredibly smooth. I run arch on a System76 Lemur Pro and, for the most part, this has been the most problem-free system I've ever used. I had some kernel issues at some point which were solved by just keeping the kernel version back until the bug was fixed. By contrast, I never had that option on macOS when something stopped working or became annoying. I have a number of colleagues who use various flavours of ubuntu on different machines (Dell, Lenovo, etc.) and do almost no configuration and they seem to be perfectly happy (with a small exception: compositor issues when sharing screens on zoom, but that seems to be it).

gtf21 5y ago
I've thought about why this has been the most stable system experience for me, and I think it comes down to simplicity: my linux system just has far fewer moving parts than my mac did (I can read the process list and mostly understand everything that's running at any given time). I think the main problem is that the simplicity of my system comes from the fact that I have set up each part of it, by hand, to do exactly what I want it to do, which is definitely _not_ realistic for the majority of users (for whom a mac is considerably easier to set up, even if less stable).
- zeagle 5y ago
  I think you have answered your own first post's question with the second paragraph of this post. I also gave pretty concrete examples in my original, downvoted post of how a using a laptop that was designed to run well with linux more or less out of the box based on hardware choices still falls short. I'm happy your transition was smoother than mine!
zeagle 5y ago
I am happy to use linux and run a VPS and a basement server with some of my posting history describing my projects. The reality is it needs constant tinkering and I think most of us don't realize it the same way someone that has a hobby of fixing up their old car doesn't realize they spend many hours in the garage.