One big difference that I've noticed between Windows and Linux is that Windows does a much better job ensuring that the system stays responsive even under heavy load.
For instance, I often need to compile Rust code. Anyone who writes Rust knows that the Rust compiler is very good at using all your cores and all the CPU time it can get its hands on (which is good, you want it to compile as fast as possible after all). But that means that for a time while my Rust code is compiling, I will be maxing out all my CPU cores at 100% usage.
When this happens on Windows, I've never really noticed. I can use my web browser or my code editor just fine while the code compiles, so I've never really thought about it.
However, on Linux when all my cores reach 100%, I start to notice it. It seems like every window I have open starts to lag and I get stuttering as the programs struggle to get a little bit of CPU that's left. My web browser starts lagging with whole seconds of no response and my editor behaves the same. Even my KDE Plasma desktop environment starts lagging.
I suppose Windows must be doing something clever to somehow prioritize user-facing GUI applications even in the face of extreme CPU starvation, while Linux doesn't seem to do a similar thing (or doesn't do it as well).
Is this an inherent problem of Linux at the moment or can I do something to improve this? I'm on Kubuntu 24.04 if it matters. Also, I don't believe it is a memory or I/O problem as my memory is sitting at around 60% usage when it happens with 0% swap usage, while my CPU sits at basically 100% on all cores. I've also tried disabling swap and it doesn't seem to make a difference.
EDIT: Tried nice -n +19, still lags my other programs.
EDIT 2: Tried installing the Liquorix kernel, which is supposedly better for this kinda thing. I dunno if it's placebo but stuff feels a bit snappier now? My mouse feels more responsive. Again, dunno if it's placebo. But anyways, I tried compiling again and it still lags my other stuff.
Yeah I think the philosophy of Linux is to not assume what you are going to be use it for. Why should Linux know where your priorities are better than you?
Some people want to run their rustc, ffmpeg or whatever intensive program and don't mind getting a coffee while that happens, or it's running on a non-user facing server anyway, to ensure that the process happens as soon as technically possible. Mind you that your case is not an "average usecase" either, not everyone is a developer that does compilation tasks.
So you've got a point that the defaults could be improved for the desktop software developer user or somehow made more easily configurable. As suggested downthread, try the
nicecommand, an optimized scheduler or kernel, or pick a distribution equipped with that kind of kernel by default. The beauty of Linux is that there are many ways to solve a problem, and with varying levels of effort you can get things to pretty much exactly where you want them, rather than some crowdpleasing default.Because a responsive desktop is basic good UX that should never ever be questioned. That should at least be the default and if you don't want your desktop to have special priority, then you can configure it yourself.
I'm running Kubuntu, an official variant of Ubuntu which is very much a "just works" kind of distribution - yet this doesn't just work.
What if I know it will compile for several minutes so I leave it alone to go office chair jousting? It would be fair to lock up the UI in this case.
Sure, it could lock up the UI if there is no input for a while I suppose. But if there is still input, then it should be responsive.
I believe it can achieve both.
There's a setting in windows to change the priority management, most people never see it.
By default it's configured for user responsiveness, but you can set it for service responsiveness.
Though this is nothing like the process priority management in Linux, it's one setting, that frankly I've never seen it make any difference. At least with Linux you can configure all sorts of priority management, on the fly no less.
Even with a server, you'd still want the UI to have priority. God knows when you do have to remote in, it's because you gotta fix something, and odds are the server is gonna be misbehavin' already.
That's a fair point.
I still contend that regularly using processes that hog every available cpu cycle it can get its hands on was not a common enough desktop use case that warranted changing the defaults. It should be up to the user to configure to their needs. That said, a toggle switch like the hidden windows setting you described would be nice.