Linux

After all, Linux is mine. I care for it. Grow it like a garden.

We live in a world where the idea of community has been destroyed by rampant capitalism and the death of third spaces.

While there is indeed a lot to be said for something that "just works," that "just works" demand is borne from a capitalist/consumer process that is literally in the process of going off the rails.

Why do we get so mad at Windows? Because it isn't ours. Microsoft grows it like a weed on our property. Its roots begin sticking out new places all the time ("hey what's that new bullshit on my taskbar?") and has zero respect for your needs as opposed to its needs. Windows only cares for Microsoft's needs, and it makes that readily evident in how you're forced to use it.

Linux is the communal kibbutz, Windows is the corporate city.

In other words, Linux is better than we think it is.

When I've thought about this is in the past I've concluded that my expectations of Linux are actually higher than Windows or Mac. It's given me the expectation that if something doesn't work the way I want it then it will be possible to make it do that, whereas with other operating systems I have been more inclined to just accept a limitation and move on.

But that aside, do we give Linux too much benefit of the doubt relative to the "things that just work".

No, I don't think so. There should be an expected difference between Windows (for example) and Linux as far as "it just works" goes, simply by virtue of the fact that one is actively developed by a company with eleventy-bajillion dollars and the other is developed by lots of hobbyists and a handful of profitable companies.

If Windows doesn't work, it's not unreasonable to expect that it should. If Linux doesn't work, it is unreasonable to expect that it always will.

You make an excellent point. I have a lot more patience for something I can understand, control, and most importantly, modify to my needs. Compared to an iThing (when it's interacting with other iThings anyway) Linux is typically embarrassingly user hostile.

If course, if you want your iThing to do something Apple hasn't decided you should want to do, it's a Total Fucking Nightmare to get working, so you use the OS that supports your priorities.

Still, I really appreciate the Free software that goes out of its way to make things easy, and it's something I prioritise in my own Free software offerings.

Each time I go back on windows I realize it's worse than I remembered, even though I never liked it. One thing I quickly realized after getting constantly asked for help about issues on windows : people tend to be greatly biased about how reliable it is, mostly because it's all they've known for a long time.

People often talk about compatibility regarding Linux, but are somehow oblivious to all the devices and hardware made for windows that somehow fails miserably to work when it has no good reason to...while Linux, despite most hardware and software not being made with it in mind, can sometimes somehow work wonders.

Windows only «just works» because it's made by a monopolistic monster of a company, with a ton of software and tools and stuff made for it because of how widespread it is, and despite that their OS is just plain garbage..

As an IT guy who has worked at a bunch of companies with exclusively Windows environments, Windows absolutely doesn't "just work."

I can't begin to list all the random problems I have with Windows in my day-to-day job.

Driver problems, hardware compatibility problems, software crashes, OS freezes, random configuration resets, networking issues, performance issues, boot issues, etc etc etc...

New hardware causes problems, old hardware causes problems.

Almost everything is harder to troubleshoot on Windows than Linux.

I have several test servers set up at my current workplace, they are old decommissioned desktops that are 10+ years old. I use them for messing around with Docker, Ansible, Tailscale, and random internal company resources like Bookstack and OpenProject.

All run Linux, all are a head and shoulders more stable and functional than the majority of much newer and more powerful Windows machines at our company.

Debian, Mint, CatchyOS, they all are far more dependable than most of the Windows machines. They install fast, on any hardware I use, decade+ old Quadro cards and Intel CPUs, doesn't matter, they all run nearly perfect. And the rare times I have an issue, it's so much faster to figure out and fix in Linux.

I switched over one of the computers in our department to Linux Mint. Threw it on a random laptop I had laying around. I did it just as an experiment, told the guy who was working on it to let me know if he had any issues using it. I planned on only having it out there for a week or two... It's been 4 months and he loves it.

He says it's super fast and easy to use, he doesn't have any problems with it. Uses Libre office for documents, Firefox for our cloud-based ERP system, Teams and Outlook as PWAs installed on Mint.

I use Ansible to push updates to it once a week, Timeshift in case something ever breaks. It's great. About a month ago I told him I would probably need to take it back because technically, it wasn't an official deployment and the experiment I was doing had long since passed. He put up such a fuss that I decided to just let it stay. I'll probably clone the drive, put it on his old tower, and take the laptop back, and let him keep using it indefinitely.

Linux absolutely isn't perfect, no technology is. But in my years of experience with both, Linux on the whole is far less finicky, and far easier to fix when it breaks.

Generally, when things work on windows, it is the effort of whomever made the device or software. Microsoft generally does not develop drivers. However, when things work on GNU/Linux it is the effort of GNU, Linux, or the community. The manufacturer probably did nothing. This simply explains why we are generally relaxed or "give Linux too much benefit of the doubt relative to the “things that just work”".

So fairly comparing a Linux distro to raw windows, Linux is better. When you install a distro, things just work, when you install windows, most stuff do not work and you need to complete setup. Unless you use tools provided by the manufacturer, but then again, it is same story.

I'd clarify that the shear customizability of Linux is optional.

Take a SteamDeck with SteamOS versus a RPi with e.g Debian.

If you "just" play with the SteamDeck and you don't tinker, well, it "just works". In most, even though not all, normal situations, e.g plugging a screen, pairing a BT headphone, mouse, keyboard, etc it is solid. It has no problem even while using a compatibility layer like Proton for games themselves made for Windows. It even enable some tinkering thanks to its immutable OS and let the player switch to desktop mode. Not everything works but my personal experience since it's been out has been pretty much flawless.

Now, take a RPi, with just as stable hardware, with Debian, even stable, and put on it some IoT device, make some weird modifications for it, try a bunch of stuff, remove package, tinker more, chances are it will still work. Tinker more, make stranger modifications to the point it becomes unstable. Is it Linux itself? I'd argue it's not. I'd argue that instead because we CAN tinker we sometimes do then forget that it's not the same context as something expected to run without hiccup because it's been limited to basically the same verified usage.

So... IMHO Linux is even better than it is, we just shouldn't confuse weird (and important) tinkering with how it can be actually used day to day.

Is Linux As Good As We Think It Is?

No, it's better.

Seriously, when something that I paid for it doesn't work is annoying when something that I choose to use doesn't work is somewhat my fault, I think that's the difference.

No, not really. I believe it is because a lot of us linux users have more understanding of our systems, so we know why a certain outcome happened vs "it just works ^tm^".

Also I would like to point out something that I have been telling people for years whenever a post like this comes up. Windows and Mac users do the same thing. They constantly overlook bugs, bad design, artificial limitations, and just the overall lack of care when it comes to various details that more community oriented projects cater to. The reason is because of familiarity. Just like many of us will often not see issues with new comers struggles because we have already worked around all of the issues. These users do the same.

Things don’t just work on any operating system.

With Windows, you have to hope there’s a solution that you can implement that doesn’t require rooting around in the insanely-outmoded registry and doesn’t require uninstalling some specific KB12345678 update.

With MacOS, you will do as Apple says, and you will like it. Otherwise, enjoy the $3000 doorstop. Granted, there is plenty you can tweak, but when there is a problem, and you find some Apple Communities post with a copy/paste official reply that has steps to take, none of which ever actually solve the problem, you will be treated with a cheeseburger on your way to the insane asylum. Full disclosure: a MacBook Air is my daily work driver.

With Linux, you are in charge — for better and for worse. This means that when there is a problem, while there is likely a solution, it will depend on many, many factors such as hardware configuration, kernel version, desktop environment, graphics card, display manager, etc. But, you can fix it with research and perseverance with no company getting in the way.

The main difference with Linux, is that you are given the freedom to deal with problems as you see fit.

So, yes, to me, Linux is as good as I think it is — not because it’s better or more stable (though subjectively I would say it is), but because it respects us by keeping the ownership and power where it belongs.

Exactly. I give more credits to linux, and it deserves this. I like your garden metaphor, yes my linux pc is like my garden and linux behaves to be, unlike windows.

Thing is, a well configured Linux system will just work, and continue to work for the foreseeable future. You have zero guarantee of this with Windows.

After being in tech for like 30 years, i'd say that every OS sucks, but the way they suck and the intensity of said sucking is very much not the same across them. Linux VERY MUCH has issues, yes, but most of the time they're in your power to diagnose and fix, in Windows the main troubleshooting advice has remained mostly the same across decades, the 3 R's, Reboot, Reinstall, Reformat, because many times you just don't know and CANNOT know what went wrong.

I'm annoyed when things don't work. I'm even more annoyed when something can't be made to work.

I find the first kind of annoyance much more ephemeral.

growing it like a garden is a perfect phrase imo

because on windows or Mac it may have just worked. ..until it doesn't, or leaves your windows scaled wrong or placed on monitors that don't exist or some other failure condition. at which point you reboot and hope for the best.

when it doesn't work on Linux I'd check logs, actual configuration, and even the source if I need to.and then I'd hopefully improve things and make it work the way I want it to.

It's an operating system. It's not supposed to be noticed as good or bad. It should stay out of your way. If you ever notice it, it's doing something wrong.

Linux is clean and nicer looking than Windows and that is enough for me to switch to Linux

Linux is as good as Linux is, just as Windows is as good as Windows is and MacOS is as good as it is.

All operating systems have their place, purpose, and use cases, so the question is subjective. Different OS's are good or bad for different people, and different scenario's which is why they all have a part of the market share.

MacOS has ease of use and excellent intercompatibility with other Apple products, and Windows has boatloads of compatible software and compatibility with Microsoft's Active Directory domains in businesses.

What Linux has is cost effectiveness and true ownership and control.

At the moment most people prefer ease of use for home computing, but on a long enough timeline Linux will obtain this as well, just look at what Valve did with SteamOS and the steam deck when it comes to that. Making it easy to use there is, I suspect, one of the major reasons the steam deck as a device is so well reviewed, and partly why we have seen such an increase in market share recently I suspect.

So right now, most people probably prefer another OS because of ease of use, but at some point in the future, Linux will probably be holding all the cards. It just seems that those who develop the distributions are often tied up with other goals apart from ease of use for the common user in the contemporary, but eventually they will begin to tackle this goal as well.

" “things that just work”.

That certainly not how I will describe the Linux desktop experience.

I think about this a lot, and my take is that Linux is waaayyy better if you have perfect or close-to-perfect knowledge of how the operating system works and what software is available. Similarly, I think an argument can be made for Linux being better if all you need is a web browser and you're not using really unusual hardware.

Where things fall apart is for people who have very specific needs that are complex, even if they only need it 1% of the time, and they don't have the technical knowledge to solve it with the power-user tools available. Microsoft has spent decades paying developers to handle these edge cases and ensuring GUI settings discoverability.

At the same time, schools and workplaces have taught people the design language of Windows, and the network effect of having so much of the world's end-user PCs running on Windows means that there are vast resources available targeted at people without technical knowledge. At this point, for better or worse, Microsoft's design language is the global default for non-technical people.

If a person never has to touch a setting because all they need is a browser, they don't hit any friction and they are happy. If they need to do even one thing that requires them to dig into settings or touch the terminal, the difference from Microsoft's design language is enough for that one frustrating experience to give them a bad taste in their mouth about Linux as a whole.

Like anything else, can be, depending on your needs.

Depends what you want in an OS. The increasingly invasive ads and loss of control in Windows is overwhelmingly a good enough reason for me. But it is not the case for everyone.

Linux has its quirks, and it's a different approach to an OS in general, so it can be intimidating if you only want an office machine.

It depends on what you're using it for. Elaborate multi monitor setups? Starting a web server? Controlling a robot? A car's ECU?

Linux isn't a specific platform. Linux the kernel is a generic kernel that can be used and tuned for virtually any hardware. GNU/Linux the OS is also a generic OS that can be customized to work for variety of use cases. The most popular desktop Linux OSes are still very generic. Most of them aren't built to be power efficient on laptops for example. Yet we know Linux can be very power efficient on variety of purpose-built mobile hardware.

Windows on the other hand was built from the start to be a desktop OS. The desktop and later laptop use cases have always been primary. To the point of making other use cases more difficult. The same is true for macOS. So when you see them performing well in some desktop-related use cases where Linux might struggle a bit, it's no surprise. If enough of us wanted it to be better at that, we could make it happen. If enough of us wanted macOS or Windows to do something Apple or MS didn't, tough luck. So it's just a matter of priorities and resources.

Linux is obviously very good, but you are right, we give Linux a pass sometimes because we 'build' it. We tend to overlook its flaws because we want it to be better than the competition.

I've recently had an upgrade fail to the point of a reinstall, a folder that I can't share between two users on the same laptop, and shutdown buttons on two computers that disappeared. If those problems happened on Windows, I'd be really annoyed, but because they happened on Linux, I just fixed them and carried on.

Just this morning I tried to make Outlook on my work laptop to open on startup. I have to find and add a shortcut of Outlook, buried somewhere in the machine, to the startup folder, buried somewhere else in the machine. The startup apps settings menu was just an eclectic list of programs and is of no use at all.

With Mint on my home machine I just go to startup programs settings menu and I can add whatever I want just by pointing it to the right program. It just works.

I just got to work and plugged my surface pro into my external monitor. It didn't switch inputs immediately, and I thought "Linux would have done that". But would it?

Nope. My laptop for example doesn't automatically use an output when plugged in, but that doesn't bother me because I know other DEs would do that, and it's my choice of having a minimal window manager that causes that.

And this goes into your next point, because I know that this comes from decisions I made, I'm okay with that. I also know I could probably fix it somehow, even if just by running a script in the background that checks if an output is plugged and tries to use it.

And for me that's the big difference. As a general rule when things break or don't work are not the fault of Linux as a general, but of a specific piece of the stack, and more often than not it's because that piece was backwards engineered without any help from the manufacturers of the hardware it's meant to be controlling, so I can be very tolerant of these errors since the bad guys here are the third-party who's refusing to make their things work on Linux. But even things that don't work as I want to, I can make them do so, and that's a huge change in viewpoint.

In other words, on Windows I used to be of the thought of things you can do, and things you can't, with time I noticed that in Linux this thought shifted, to the point that the only question I ever ask myself is: "HOW do I do this?". This implies that there are no impossible things in Linux, which is obviously false, but I would argue that the correct way to think about this is "things that are impossible on Linux, for now", and that's a huge difference, because Linux is always evolving and getting better and better, things you thought are impossible now might be trivial in a few months or years whenever someone with the knowledge to fix it gets bothered with it.