Is Linux for Desktop PCs still as good?

CiniO

As a long time linux user who migrated to windows few years ago, I struggle to find a suitable usable distro those days... Is it just me?


I started my adventure with Linux in 1997 when I finished my primary school and started high school.
Our school PC lab, had 18 PCs then all running DOS. There was a Linux server (Slackware 3.4) which was connected to internet (through leased phone line with 33.6 kbit/s modem).
We didn't have NAT then (I don't think it was even called that those days - it was IP MASQUERADE afair but we still didn't have it) so all we could do was to connect from DOS workstation in text mode with dos telnet client to our Linux server and use internet that way (ftp for downloading, lynx for browsing, irc for chats, pine for email, etc....). Great days...
This was my first contact with linux, I liked it a lot, and not long after I had full Red Hat 5 distro on my own home PC running smoothly. A year later when I was in 2 class in the school, I already knew much more about linux than our IT teacher, so they took me as our system admin...

Anyway - since then I used linux as my primary system at all times on most of my PCs. At those times alternative to linux was Windows 95 and then 98 followed by Me, which were absolutely horrendous when it came to stability.
System hanging down few times a day, restarts needed after any simple change, generally hardly usable system. For comparison my linux was running as stable as possible, with uptimes of over a year in many cases...

FLWM was nice graphical interface, but eventually KDE was always my favourite providing much superior user experience than any MS Windows desktop.

I mostly used Slackware those days, later switching to Gentoo around 2003.

After Windows ME, MS released Windows 2000 which was way better for stability, but lacked basic multimedia/gaming abilities. Windows XP solved that problem, but again made system much less stable. Vista was quita a disaster.

So years went by, and I was very happy with my Linux and fact that it's much superior to any Windows available.

Unfortunately in 2012 I decided to try to switch to using Windows for a while. I got Windows 8 and I actually found it great in terms of stability and speed. In many areas it worked better than my Gentoo. After using kinda both system for a while, I eventually abandoned Gentoo probably mostly due to lack of time for doing constant system upgrades through complation of packages and solving problems associated with that. I also needed to use some Windows specific software for a while, so I stayed with Windows for good.
In the mean time I upgraded to Win 8.1 and then to Win 10, and I find all those system extremely reliable, stable and fast.

I keep trying linux over last few years, but couldn't really find any suitable distro.
Ubuntu, Mint and the likes, are meant to work out-of-the-box, but in plenty of cases they don't (at least for me) and I struggle with basic stuff which works under Windows 10 no bother. Trying to amend anything in those system is bit a of a hell due to unnecessery complicatied build.

Gentoo seems to be nearly dead by now. Packages are not being updated quick enough IMO.

Slackware is hardly usable those days, except from very specific use or server.

I was planning to try Arch Linux, but didn't have time so far.

KDE was absolutely brilliant in the 3.x versions, but I didn't find 4.x so good, and now current versions seem to be overloaded with plenty of unnecesery stuff which slows it down. Not so intuitive and nice anymore comparing to Windows.


Generally though, for me it looks like Microsoft managed to create really good OSes like Win 8 or 10 (probably Win 7 as well but I can't tell as I never used it) which in many areas can win the battle with Linux on Desktop PC when it comes to stability, and speed, and comfort of use.


Is it just me, or does anyone else have similar feelings?

Johnboy1951

It's just you .... you drank the kool-ade

Check out this ISO and see what you think ..... it is test only and not even in pre-release state but works well and fast
http://ftp.heanet.ie/pub/pclinuxos/pclinuxos/live-cd/Preview/

Of course if you still want to spend the time as you did previously then Arch is most likely what will satisfy you. It has the best documentation of any of the distros, IMO.

Personally I like the 'work out of box' idea with little admin needed except for initial tweaking to get things as I like them.

Tom Dunne

Its back to the old "it depends on what you use it for".

General, undemanding tasks - it's fine. Anything more complex, in my experience, Linux just isn't up to the task. One area I feel it really excels is in sys admin/web/development type tasks. In terms of desktop security (in terms of viruses/malware), it's fairly robust. However I've noticed just as many updates for my Fedora laptop as my Windows laptop.

Horses for courses, really.

Johnboy1951

Tom Dunne wrote:

Anything more complex, in my experience, Linux just isn't up to the task.

I wondered what you had in mind when you wrote this. It might be interesting to read, thanks.

L.Jenkins

Gave Gentoo a try in boxes. Not sure if I'd go with it as my main distro.

excollier

For other than a few Windows specific applications I can do everything else I need on pretty much any Linux distribution. I've been using Linux exclusively at home for four years now.
I just don't need Windows any more.
Fedora will always be updating more than some distros but I bet it doesn't need a reboot very often unlike Windows

excollier

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I wondered what you had in mind when you wrote this. It might be interesting to read, thanks.

Me too - what "complex tasks" can a Linux computer not handle?

Giacomo McGubbin

There are now some very bloated linux distro's out there now, that are trying to be all things to all people. I think the real beauty of linux, is choosing the right distro, and running a pared back system, and installing only the applications you actually need and use. IMO It's vastly superior to windows when used this way.

syklops

Every system I own runs Linux. The only windows machines in my home are my girlfriends gamings machines.

The only games I play are Dune 2000, and Counter-strike both of which work on Linux. Is it still as good? I think it is.

I do have a love/hate relationship with KDE though. When it works it works brilliantly. Then they periodically f%$k with it.

Tom Dunne

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I wondered what you had in mind when you wrote this. It might be interesting to read, thanks.

Working in a Microsoft dominated office environment, connecting to Active Directory, working on complex documents.

Johnboy1951

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Working in a Microsoft dominated office environment, connecting to Active Directory, working on complex documents.

ok, I can understand that in a MS centric environment there will be certain proprietary tools/procedures/whatever that essentially prevents complete interoperability by a system without those proprietary functions. Presumably your reference to 'complex documents' is also referencing those proprietary functions.

If I am now reading this correctly (maybe I'm not), then the following is not quite accurate

Anything more complex, in my experience, Linux just isn't up to the task.

Would it not be more correct to say that Linux cannot interoperate with proprietary functions that it is locked out of? If that is what you meant then I would not consider that a Linux limitation, but a limitation imposed by the proprietary environment.

Tom Dunne

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

ok, I can understand that in a MS centric environment there will be certain proprietary tools/procedures/whatever that essentially prevents complete interoperability by a system without those proprietary functions. Presumably your reference to 'complex documents' is also referencing those proprietary functions.

If I am now reading this correctly (maybe I'm not), then the following is not quite accurate
Would it not be more correct to say that Linux cannot interoperate with proprietary functions that it is locked out of? If that is what you meant then I would not consider that a Linux limitation, but a limitation imposed by the proprietary environment.

Try explaining that to Grandma.

Johnboy1951

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Try explaining that to Grandma.

Your grandma is "Working in a Microsoft dominated office environment, connecting to Active Directory, working on complex documents."?

I guess if she is then she is capable of working that out for herself!

Hotblack Desiato

Is linux for desktop PCs still as good? No. It's much better

I bought a Macbook 9 years ago and put openSUSE on it on day 1, think it was 10.3 or 11.1 in those days, it worked pretty well.

A few hard disk and RAM upgrades down the line, that same machine is still my daily driver, and it's faster and more stable now than it's ever been. openSUSE 13.1/KDE4

A problem now is that 32-bit distros are being dropped, although it's a 64-bit machine and happily ran 64-bit in the past, it won't boot 64-bit EFI ISOs because the firmware is 32-bit. Also 3GB RAM is the practical limit (4GB reputed to cause crashes due to conflict with video RAM addressing, 2GB is the official limit on this machine) which is getting to be a problem with modern browsers getting very memory-hungry.

syklops

Things that run Linux:

US Nuclear submarines
The New York Stock Exchange
All of Facebooks infrastructure.

But for more complex tasks its not up to task. Thanks OP for this Public safety announcement.

L.Jenkins

syklops wrote: »

...But for more complex tasks its not up to task....

How so? The few things I don't use Linux for: Gaming and Graphics design. Other than that, I browse the net, develop software, write documents, etc. I'm not sure what Linux can't do, that Windows and MacOS does.

syklops

L.Jenkins wrote: »

How so? The few things I don't use Linux for: Gaming and Graphics design. Other than that, I browse the net, develop software, write documents, etc. I'm not sure what Linux can't do, that Windows and MacOS does.

Please God tell me you are being sarcastic.

human 19

As an intro to Arch you could try Manjaro or Netrunner which are full iso installs rather than hours on the Arch cli install. I use Arch as my main OS but use Netrunner for it's integrated Steam client.

L.Jenkins

syklops wrote: »

Please God tell me you are being sarcastic.

Yup :P

Dave_G_

syklops wrote: »

Things that run Linux:

US Nuclear submarines
The New York Stock Exchange
All of Facebooks infrastructure.

But for more complex tasks its not up to task. Thanks OP for this Public safety announcement.

None of these are Desktop Environments...

Johnboy1951

What an insightful first post! :rolleyes:

Dave_G_

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

What an insightful first post! :rolleyes:

I believe that was directed towards me. I think the definition of complex tasks was to be defined in the scope of Desktop computers, likely referring to Video editing, 3D modeling, video game performance, etc.

I use Arch Linux as a Desktop and it's a good fit for me but talking about powerful backend Linux servers is slightly off-topic IMO.

Johnboy1951

Dave_G_ wrote: »

I believe that was directed towards me. I think the definition of complex tasks was to be defined in the scope of Desktop computers, likely referring to Video editing, 3D modeling, video game performance, etc.

I use Arch Linux as a Desktop and it's a good fit for me but talking about powerful backend Linux servers is slightly off-topic IMO.

The complex tasks were defined by the poster who made the comment
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100532952&postcount=10

crkball6

Dave_G_ wrote: »

I believe that was directed towards me. I think the definition of complex tasks was to be defined in the scope of Desktop computers, likely referring to Video editing, 3D modeling, video game performance, etc.

I use Arch Linux as a Desktop and it's a good fit for me but talking about powerful backend Linux servers is slightly off-topic IMO.

The Matrix in as far back as the 90's was done on mostly FreeBSD and Linux desktops for example. You will struggle I think to find a complex task that the _OS_ can't do quicker and with more stability than a windows machine.

I'm still struggling to see here a complex task windows could do and a BSD/Linux box couldn't.

You seem to be referring to the options of software availability to each rather than the OS been up to the task of computing complex tasks. It doesn't get more complicated than sending people to the moon which Linux does in it's sleep we're suggesting the same OS would have problems doing 3 modelling?

Tom Dunne

crkball6 wrote: »

It doesn't get more complicated than sending people to the moon which Linux does in it's sleep we're suggesting the same OS would have problems doing 3 modelling?

While I am no expert on astronomy, I believe the last manned mission to the moon was in 1972. Linux was created around 1991.

crkball6

Tom Dunne wrote: »

While I am no expert on astronomy, I believe the last manned mission to the moon was in 1972. Linux was created around 1991.

Space, you know what I meant!

Tom Dunne

crkball6 wrote: »

You seem to be referring to the options of software availability to each rather than the OS been up to the task of computing complex tasks.

In fairness, yes, I am.

I am also coming from the perspective of substantial IT industry experience, beyond gaming and basic word processing.

Bit cynical

I would be interested in the question of what in principle can't be done on the Linux desktop.

There is certainly a problem with software availability and this is due to the fact that Linux (and other operating systems other than Windows) are still very much minority OS's. If Linux ran on 90% of desktops then software availability would not be a problem.

The primary problem for Linux uptake is not that the latest video editing or other specialist software is not available but rather that Microsoft Office is not available. For office use, you need to be able to accept files produced in Microsoft Office, e.g. Word documents through email and have them appear exactly as the sender sees them. Programs like OpenOffice don't quite achieve this. 99% is not good enough. Though the spreadsheet in OpenOffice and LibreOffice is very good, the macro system is not 100% compatible with Excel and so also fails.

This lack of basic file compatibility means that most commercial offices won't use Linux and consequently developers of more specialist software also won't target Linux.

It is a shame really, because Linux is a good operating system. LibreOffice and OpenOffice are not as sophisticated as MS Office but adequate for most office use. It is the compatibility that is the problem. I try to encourage home users whenever I get the chance to download LibreOffice if they use Windows rather than paying for MS Office.

Perhaps if Government departments could be made to save money by installing LibreOffice instead of MS Office some sort of critical mass could be achieved.

syklops

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I am also coming from the perspective of substantial IT industry experience, beyond gaming and basic word processing.

Unlike most other people who frequent the Unix forum on Boards.

crkball6

Bit cynical wrote: »

Perhaps if Government departments could be made to save money by installing LibreOffice instead of MS Office some sort of critical mass could be achieved.

I'm not sure what change it would make.
How long has Microsoft Office been available to OSX users?

OSX has Microsoft Office available to it and one of the cleanest GUI interfaces you're ever likely to experience IMO and I don't even own one! Yet OSX still doesn't even have 5% of the market

People have been pointing out to the lack of interoperability with Office for years. It's not that simple.

crkball6

OSI wrote: »

I stopped using Linux on a desktop/laptop once I bought my first Mac. I got the out of the box usability and software availability of Windows with the performance and flexibility of Linux. 99.9% of the stuff I would want to do with either OS is doable in OS X without any fuss and I don't have to worry about whether my specific wireless chipset is still going to be supported in the next update, or will I have to go through the hell of NDISWrapper again, nor will I have to concern myself with bloody xrandr and other wholly unusable utilities just because Ubuntu has decided it doesn't recognise my Dell monitor connected via HDMI is capable of 1920x1080.

It has a different set of problems.

Your limited to very over priced hardware by a company at will decide to pull x bit of hardware from the machine or require to you to purchase extra hardware to add back the functionality. Vendor lock in is never good.

You still have the "gaming problem", the amount of free software is vastly reduced. Flexibiltiy in the OS etc

I don't want to knock OSX too much, while not a mac owner I do like many parts of it.

crkball6

OSI wrote: »

Has this ever happened? I can't in ten years of using OS X remember ever having functionality removed.

Hardware functionality, yes. drives/ports requiring "attachments" purchased separately etc even in their phones they're now pulling out things like the ear phone jack etc. Again, vendor lock in any form is not good.

OSI wrote: »

It's basically BSD. If the software will run on a Linux desktop it will run on OS X.

Having a BSD TCP/IP stack doesn't make something basically the same thing. With a huge amount of hackery and messing which you previously wanted to avoid I could probably switch to gnome/KDE on OSX. Where on Linux I'm free to install and remove whatever I want. In order for OSX to function that's just not possible. So it's not just a case of it runs on Linux it will run on OSX. If there' s a port obviously. but there's just not the abundance of easy to install applicaions for OSX as there is Linux/BSD