this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024

277 points (92.6% liked)

Linux

48328 readers

602 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

277

Is Linux As Good As We Think It Is? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 months ago by wuphysics87@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

162 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Obviously, a bit of clickbait. Sorry.

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?

I find myself far more patient using Linux and De-googled Android than I do with windows or anything else. After all, Linux is mine. I care for it. Grow it like a garden.

And that's a good thing; I get less frustrated with my tech, and I have something that is important to me outside its technical utility. Unlike windows, which I'm perpetually pissed at. (Very often with good reason)

But that aside, do we give Linux too much benefit of the doubt relative to the "things that just work". Often they do "just work", and well, with a broad feature set by default.

Most of us are willing to forgo that for the privacy and shear customizability of Linux, but do we assume too much of the tech we use and the tech we don't?

Thoughts?

(page 4) 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] skibidi@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, not even close.

I've used Unix systems for years at work, and have dual-booted windows with various flavors of Linux at home for just as long. When I just need something to work, particularly something new or after a stressful day at work, I just use windows.

Why? Because it will just work. Maybe it won't work precisely how I want it to, maybe it will send all my data to Bill's push notifications, but it will run. In the rare case it doesn't, a quick google will fix it.

Compare that to Linux, where most things will work most of the time. And when they don't, you get to hunt through GitHub issues off-the-clock like a peasant, wading through comments from people with entirely different configurations and 'dunno it works for me'.

Linux is for tinkerers, and for people who want a Unix shell and can't afford a Mac, it has a long way to go to be more than that.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

For privacy and security? Yes. For usability? Noooo.

[–] jfx@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 2 months ago

Actually, if Linux/BSD/... doesn't work the way I want it to, I can always tweak it. Win or Mac? Tough luck. So Linux's usability is always there, whereas the proprietary OS's quickly hits a very hard, annoying wall.

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (11 children)

No. It really isn't.

Windows with the proper license and configuration is more stable, more productive, and that configuration takes less than an hour once for the life of the machine.

In 2024 if you're still bashing Windows for BSODs, stability, updates, etc, you're doing it wrong. You can bash all day long for privacy violations and corporate greed but both of those are fixed with the proper version like Windows Enterprise. Costs more, but you are less of the product.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Funny someone downvoted you.

Clearly that person has never managed a 10,000 pc domain. Or hell, even a 10 pc domain in an SMB.

"The license is worth the cost" - I literally had this conversation with a peer not two hours ago. They have a client who's previous IT management built a domain using Linux. Yes, you can do it, but I'd only do it if your IT is fully in-house and stable. This was an IT vendor. It saved them (the client) licensing...like $250 or so.

Imagine how quickly they're going to burn $250 for a support issue because there's something odd about how the Linux software isn't exactly duplicating a windows DC? Or the next IT vendor doesn't know what you implemented, so have to find out about which packages you used and how they work. (In this case they're building a new domain and migrating everyone, because it's currently unsupportable. Glad they saved $250 to spend $20k today).

You don't use Linux desktop in a business to save licensing costs, unless you know the use-case inside and out. The first time your business has a need for something that doesn't exist in Linux land, all those savings are gone as you build a virtual host for Windows, and deal with the lost productivity.

And I use Linux every day for things like Proxmox, UnRAID, TrueNAS, etc. Even there the difference between design approaches is really problematic.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments