Feren OS game changer

[BulletDust]

Yes Linux has is getting more games than ever, but so is macOS and Windows and Windows is getting new non-VR titles at a rate of almost 5 to 1 over Linux. So there is no closing of the gaming gap in absolute terms and it's only getting worse. So no not a wasteland but also as vibrant as your saying.

When is actually comes to games that need GPU power to drive good performance, there's not a great deal out there for Linux. Beyond Deus Ex: MD and maybe Civ VI there's not much else for Linux that's been released on Steam in the last year needs much GPU power. In the VR depart, a couple of scraps in a year's time isn't growth. 4 games VR for Linux versus over 1000 for Windows? No one is going to spend money on a VR setup for Linux for 4 games with virtually nothing going on currently, not compared to Windows.

Adoption rates between the various operating systems are irrelevant, all that matters is whether the OS supports the games you like or not. Adoption rates are mostly a result of time on the platform. Linux is a relative newcomer to Steam so it's not at all surprising that it's adoption rate with developers is slightly lower. This is common sense stuff.

GPU power is dependant on a number of factors, with graphics settings, AA/AF and resolution being a few. Furthermore, as outlined numerous times in the past, many Linux ports utilise DX to OGL wrappers and the addition of a high end GPU can undisputably overcome any performance issues that may arise as a result, especially on high refresh rate monitors.

Your comment regarding VR is a blanket statement, I'm sure there's Linux users out there that enjoy dabbling with VR - As stated many times in the past, Linux users are also hardware enthusiasts, all that matters is whether one can justify the purchase of the hardware in question. My point related to VR support under Linux, and VR is not only supported under Linux, it's also showing signs of increased support as evidenced by the adoption of SteamVR Home.

People just want to be able to use what they need, want or paid for. Why should anyone be obligated to use something that doesn't fit their needs? That's not a cop out, that's life. Where desktop Linux works well for people and that's what they want then by all means they should use it especially if Windows or macOS are failing them. But as you said in your last statement, people like me simply have far too much that doesn't work well with desktop Linux. There's just no point in me running desktop Linux as a host client when so much of the hardware isn't as nearly well utilized due to the lack of software supported under Linux that I use constantly.

Saying "I'll use Linux when it's good and well identical to my Windows machine, but I have no intention of supporting it during the adoption period" is a cop out. If this is your attitude you have no intention of switching to Linux as Linux is not Windows and your whole argument is therefore a moot point - What you desire is never going to happen as your conditioned to Windows and there is no prerequisite for Linux to behave or in any way replicate Windows in usage or support.

Once again, your particular usage scenario is on the extreme end of PC users, if Windows works for you than continue to use it - But don't come into a thread refuting my points with blanket statements relating to an alternate OS purely because it doesn't suit your extremely niche usage case.

I also just want to use my PC do do what I need and I do that and more under Linux, Windows is not necessary at all and my usage case is not as niche as yours. I think it's fairly safe to assume that I represent the bulk of high end users on the [H] forums, not yourself with six SSD's and some obscene amount of games - And that is not an attack, you have an obscene amount of games.

 

[ManofGod]

Heh it's completely backwards to run BSD inside Windows.

Not really but hey, that is the mindset of someone set in their ways.

 

[BulletDust]

Not really but hey, that is the mindset of someone set in their ways.

My opinion of you aside, I totally think it's backwards.

 

[BulletDust]

I miss both OS/2 Warp and Amiga OS. However, despite the fun factor of the latest versions available and hardware that supports it, those operating systems are essentially dead. (Regardless, they would be fun to use again, 20 years later. )

AmigaOS is actually not dead, there is still a devoted community supporting the OS - AmigaOS 3.1 actually received an update late last year:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/...n_update_and_only_a_fortnight_to_get_patched/

Interesting how the OS portrayed in the image in that article is Workbench 1.3 and not AmigaOS 3.1...

Furthermore, development of AmigaOS 4.x is still ongoing. Yes, sadly AmigaOS will never eventuate to much more than a hobby OS, however it's a far more capable system than many would be lead to believe.

 

[heatlesssun]

Adoption rates between the various operating systems are irrelevant, all that matters is whether the OS supports the games you like or not. Adoption rates are mostly a result of time on the platform. Linux is a relative newcomer to Steam so it's not at all surprising that it's adoption rate with developers is slightly lower. This is common sense stuff.

It's market share, plain and simple. And Windows is a lot more likely to support games people want to play because of it's much higher market share especially with gamers.

GPU power is dependant on a number of factors, with graphics settings, AA/AF and resolution being a few. Furthermore, as outlined numerous times in the past, many Linux ports utilise DX to OGL wrappers and the addition of a high end GPU can undisputably overcome any performance issues that may arise as a result, especially on high refresh rate monitors.

You're always nothing how many Steam gamers have iGPU laptop graphics and a lot of indie titles are clearly focused on running well on low end hardware. Just looking through recent games added to Steam just in May, even for new titles that are Windows only, the bulk look like they'd run on just about anything pretty well. The indie titles that tend to need the most GPU these days are VR.

Your comment regarding VR is a blanket statement, I'm sure there's Linux users out there that enjoy dabbling with VR - As stated many times in the past, Linux users are also hardware enthusiasts, all that matters is whether one can justify the purchase of the hardware in question. My point related to VR support under Linux, and VR is not only supported under Linux, it's also showing signs of increased support as evidenced by the adoption of SteamVR Home.

Spending hundreds of dollars to dabble in VR? Don't see too many Linux folks talking about doing that. There's dozens of free VR tiles and demos under Windows. Spending hundreds of dollars and not availing one to the free stuff? No one is going to do that, ESPECIALLY Linux folks that constantly complain about the cost of Windows licensees.

Saying "I'll use Linux when it's good and well identical to my Windows machine, but I have no intention of supporting it during the adoption period" is a cop out.

Nope, people aren't going throw away what they have spent money on or what they need or go out of their way to dual boot a desktop OS over this old debate.

If this is your attitude you have no intention of switching to Linux as Linux is not Windows and your whole argument is therefore a moot point - What you desire is never going to happen as your conditioned to Windows and there is no prerequisite for Linux to behave or in any way replicate Windows in usage or support.

Again, it's a financial issue. You say you can't justify the cost of Windows licenses. I can't justify using host OS that doesn't well support hardware and software that cost many, many times a Windows license.

Once again, your particular usage scenario is on the extreme end of PC users, if Windows works for you than continue to use it - But don't come into a thread refuting my points with blanket statements relating to an alternate OS purely because it doesn't suit your extremely niche usage case.

Gaming is hardly an extreme niche case use for PCs. PC VR, ok sure. And no one spends that kind of money to dabble around to play for games. A Linux VR, sure. But even that developer is probably going to be running VR under Windows to check out what's going on with VR from time to time.

I also just want to use my PC do do what I need and I do that and more under Linux, Windows is not necessary at all and my usage case is not as niche as yours. I think it's fairly safe to assume that I represent the bulk of high end users on the [H] forums, not yourself with six SSD's and some obscene amount of games - And that is not an attack, you have an obscene amount of games.

It's not just games though, so much of everything I use constantly just isn't well supported under Linux. You're always thinking about things in terms of the OS, I usually thinking about the things I want to do. I don't really think about the OS because generally when it comes to PCs, anything new is going to be supported under the latest version of Windows, that's just how it's worked for decades now. If I were thinking about Linux, I would spend a lot less money on PCs, and not because of Windows licenses but everything else.

 

[BulletDust]

It's market share, plain and simple. And Windows is a lot more likely to support games people want to play because of it's much higher market share especially with gamers.



You're always nothing how many Steam gamers have iGPU laptop graphics and a lot of indie titles are clearly focused on running well on low end hardware. Just looking through recent games added to Steam just in May, even for new titles that are Windows only, the bulk look like they'd run on just about anything pretty well. The indie titles that tend to need the most GPU these days are VR.



Spending hundreds of dollars to dabble in VR? Don't see too many Linux folks talking about doing that. There's dozens of free VR tiles and demos under Windows. Spending hundreds of dollars and not availing one to the free stuff? No one is going to do that, ESPECIALLY Linux folks that constantly complain about the cost of Windows licensees.



Nope, people aren't going throw away what they have spent money on or what they need or go out of their way to dual boot a desktop OS over this old debate.



Again, it's a financial issue. You say you can't justify the cost of Windows licenses. I can't justify using host OS that doesn't well support hardware and software that cost many, many times a Windows license.



Gaming is hardly an extreme niche case use for PCs. PC VR, ok sure. And no one spends that kind of money to dabble around to play for games. A Linux VR, sure. But even that developer is probably going to be running VR under Windows to check out what's going on with VR from time to time.



It's not just games though, so much of everything I use constantly just isn't well supported under Linux. You're always thinking about things in terms of the OS, I usually thinking about the things I want to do. I don't really think about the OS because generally when it comes to PCs, anything new is going to be supported under the latest version of Windows, that's just how it's worked for decades now. If I were thinking about Linux, I would spend a lot less money on PCs, and not because of Windows licenses but everything else.

I completely disagree with everything you've posted, totally and utterly - In a nutshell, you are incorrect in everything you claim.

I am sick and tired of going over the same shit with you Heatlesssun, and we've been over this drawn out rhetoric time and time again, and time and time again you refuse to comprehend anything that fails to fit with your overly biased point of view. I am not interested in discussing anything with you that we have already discussed, and put to bed, time and time again.

The interesting thing here is I don't want to dislike you Heatlesssun, but your blind bias and flat out ridiculous points of view while blatantly refusing to accept logical points of argument is simply intolerable! As a result my opinion of you is very, very low. It is for these reasons, and these reasons alone that you are labelled a Windows shill and regarded as such to most people on the [H] forums. People offered you advice during your recent spat in a certain thread, I had hoped you'd taken their advice and decided to be an open and pleasant member of the community able to leave your obvious biases at the door on the way in - Obviously this isn't the case.

Stop with the blanket statements, stop with the generalisations, stop ignoring valid and reasonable points of argument.

 

[ChadD]

AmigaOS is actually not dead, there is still a devoted community supporting the OS - AmigaOS 3.1 actually received an update late last year:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/...n_update_and_only_a_fortnight_to_get_patched/

Interesting how the OS portrayed in the image in that article is Workbench 1.3 and not AmigaOS 3.1...

Furthermore, development of AmigaOS 4.x is still ongoing. Yes, sadly AmigaOS will never eventuate to much more than a hobby OS, however it's a far more capable system than many would be lead to believe.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/the-a-eon-amiga-x5000-reviewed-the-beloved-amiga-meets-2017/

Clearly not for everyone... but hey if you want to buy a new Amiga you totally can.

 

[BulletDust]

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/the-a-eon-amiga-x5000-reviewed-the-beloved-amiga-meets-2017/

Clearly not for everyone... but hey if you want to buy a new Amiga you totally can.

They actually are quite an interesting machine, and if I could justify the coin I'd buy one in a heartbeat. But I've got my fully expanded A500, A1200 and C64 to keep me entertained - As it is these machines have cost me a fortune.

 

[ChadD]

They actually are quite an interesting machine, and if I could justify the coin I'd buy one in a heartbeat. But I've got my fully expanded A500, A1200 and C64 to keep me entertained - As it is these machines have cost me a fortune.

I thought almost the same thing... if these where selling for 500-700 bucks I would consider it as a tinker fun box. At 1800 though ya its cool there making them but I would need to have more of a use for it.

 

[BulletDust]

I thought almost the same thing... if these where selling for 500-700 bucks I would consider it as a tinker fun box. At 1800 though ya its cool there making them but I would need to have more of a use for it.

A great example of how cost is but one factor when considering a purchase, the bulk of the decision making process when considering a purchase is 'justification'. The point of marketing is to justify the purchase to the consumer, thereby convincing them to hand over stupid sums of money.

A very relevant point to the discussion at hand.

 

[DGMurdockIII]

This has a chance to convert people we should give it a chance

 

[heatlesssun]

Stop with the blanket statements, stop with the generalisations, stop ignoring valid and reasonable points of argument.

It's a perfectly valid and reasonable point of economic common sense to say that no end user is going to spend hundreds of dollars on a PC VR setup to run exclusively under Linux when there's virtually no Linux to content to even run on that hardware.

 

[Simmonz]

This has a chance to convert people we should give it a chance

My thoughts exactly. More options are better not less. I personally hate Ubuntu but if it gets more people trying Linux then fantastic. Same reasoning with Feren, whetehr or not I like it if it gets people trying it then it's great.

 

[4saken]

I think i always post something to this affect whenever a "next big linux thing" post is made. I've been working in the *nix space for 20+years now, everyday at work, i haven't used a *nix GUI for anything practical in probably 15 of those 20 years. It's a great server/dev/scripting/etc/OS. When i go home, I still run lots of lab linux rasp pis, EC2 instances, kubernetes clusters for fun/hobby/keep skills up to date, but honestly, i just want my windows gaming rig for everything else. I see absolutely no need or reason on why I would want to run Linux as my "main" OS now or in the future. I grew out of being a Linux zealot about 12 years ago.

 

[BulletDust]

I think i always post something to this affect whenever a "next big linux thing" post is made. I've been working in the *nix space for 20+years now, everyday at work, i haven't used a *nix GUI for anything practical in probably 15 of those 20 years. It's a great server/dev/scripting/etc/OS. When i go home, I still run lots of lab linux rasp pis, EC2 instances, kubernetes clusters for fun/hobby/keep skills up to date, but honestly, i just want my windows gaming rig for everything else. I see absolutely no need or reason on why I would want to run Linux as my "main" OS now or in the future. I grew out of being a Linux zealot about 12 years ago.

And no ones telling you otherwise - If Windows works for you, use Windows. Just don't assume that your particular usage case covers everyone.

 

[Chuklr]

And no ones telling you otherwise - If Windows works for you, use Windows. Just don't assume that your particular usage case covers everyone.

This is a true post no ones "particular usage case covers everyone." I know mine doesn't, and I'm sure you understand that yours doesn't either. As I have mentioned in prior threads I use Linux and Windows and both satisfy my needs and neither does so better than another since my needs are simple and a raucous day of gaming for me now consists of Hearts, AisleRiot Solitaire, and mahjong.

 

[ManofGod]

This is a true post no ones "particular usage case covers everyone." I know mine doesn't, and I'm sure you understand that yours doesn't either. As I have mentioned in prior threads I use Linux and Windows and both satisfy my needs and neither does so better than another since my needs are simple and a raucous day of gaming for me now consists of Hearts, AisleRiot Solitaire, and mahjong.

But 3D mahjong runs better in Windows.

 

[MrCrispy]

Actually you couldn't be more wrong regarding the massive advancements Linux has made in the last 10 years alone.

The Linux desktop is now at the point where it is polished and finalised, perfectly capable of holding it's own against the Windows desktop, in many cases it's actually better. People crap on about Wayland, the fact is Wayland is going to bring to the table a totally new set of issues that have since been sorted out with decades of X Server development provided you're using a decent WM. I'm in no rush to see development move from X Server and I've had very few issues with X Server as it stands now.

Graphics drivers, in fact drivers in general have improved massively in the last ten or so years. Linux now has drivers that not only perform well, but I'd estimate support ~75% of all devices out there - What isn't supported in the Kernel can usually be quickly and easily installed by downloading off the manufacturers website, in my experience even the whole Realtek issue has improved massively.

Installing software under Linux is now easier than ever. What isn't available via easy to use software centres is now available as .Deb installers and installable via the GUI just like Windows or downloadable and installable via the terminal using .Apt very simply and easily using copy/paste, gone are the days where all software had to be compiled from scratch using the terminal and source code.

Office suites have improved out of sight in the last 10 years, you have to remember that compatibility issues are a result of MS Office itself not conforming to the .docx standard, the standard it uses by default. You can transfer documents between other office suites that conform to open standards just fine, involve Office and everything turns to hell - That by no means indicates an issue with alternate office suites, that indicates a compatibility issue with Office itself.

Email clients have improved out of sight in the last 10 years, calendar applications have improved out of sight, since the advent of Krita even GIMP is showing signs of improvement. Cross platform applications are an area that have shown massive growth in the last 10 years, I can safely say that 75% of all software applications I use under Linux are cross platform, this was unheard of 10 years ago. Cloud computing is now largely supported under Linux.

Gaming and the Steam client are now available under Linux, something that was simply unheard of in the past! ~3500 titles on Steam alone and growing. Based on my own experience using Nvidia hardware/drivers most games either run better than they do under Windows or within about 20% at worst, far more FPS than the refresh rate of my monitors.

VR is a slowly growing possibility under Linux now, with SteamVR now supported in beta form under Linux and certain headsets. I believe even SteamVR Home is supported as of 3 days ago under Linux (obviously beta).

Time does not stand still for Windows, development is ongoing and the same is true for Linux - Contrary to popular Windows folk belief Linux is not a wasteland, Linux has not stood still with little to no development for the last 10 years and Linux is a capable, fully fledged operating system used by thousands, possibly even millions, every day and growing.

The fact is, saying "I'll move over when everything I can do under Windows I can do under Linux" is a cop out. Speedy development requires physical adoption: Without large numbers adopting an alternative, development will continue, but it won't be as fast as is ideal. If you seriously plan on eventually switching to Linux, set up a spare PC or dual boot your preferred distro and start using it. If that's just unacceptable and by no means a possibility, you're not serious about moving from Windows and you're comments are therefore fairly moot.

As I always say, Linux is Linux, it is not a Windows clone, there is no prerequisite for Linux to behave in any way identically to Windows. If you need Windows due to gaming or professional reasons, the answer is remarkably simple - Stick to Windows.

You are looking at this from the pov of an expert, try looking at this from a users perspective. Forget about Windows ok. Can someone use a Linux pc for daily use, find some software they like online or someone tells them about and install it, buy some peripheral and just start using it, have problems and fix them or at least try? All of this without knowing the terminal, bash, Linux internals, package managers, man, apt/rpm/yum, ssh, sudo etc? Notice I never mentioned games, thats a very small market, people use consoles. Without needing tech support from their techy friend/family.

It really doesn't matter how much its advanced, obviously its much much better as a desktop OS as well, but does it pass the above test? Both Windows and OSX pass this test.

 

[Frobozz]

You are looking at this from the pov of an expert, try looking at this from a users perspective. Forget about Windows ok. Can someone use a Linux pc for daily use, find some software they like online or someone tells them about and install it, buy some peripheral and just start using it, have problems and fix them or at least try? All of this without knowing the terminal, bash, Linux internals, package managers, man, apt/rpm/yum, ssh, sudo etc? Notice I never mentioned games, thats a very small market, people use consoles. Without needing tech support from their techy friend/family.

It really doesn't matter how much its advanced, obviously its much much better as a desktop OS as well, but does it pass the above test? Both Windows and OSX pass this test.

I agree with the point that the software installation story could be better. However, I don't think there's really anything intuitive about software installation on any of the platforms. At least in my experience, the first time or two was explained to me either in text (readme, or nowadays a webpage before download) or verbally by a friend. I think the difference in the platforms is that most people have encountered installing software at this point and have gone through that learning process. If the first personal computer experience involved opening a terminal and typing >apt install yourmom, then apt and deb files would be easymode for someone once they're a seasoned personal computer user.

Personally, I'm a fan of the macOS experience where you just drag a folder in your dmg to Applications. That's the simple experience where I hope Flatpack/Appimage/Snaps take Linux. I've heard people say Microsoft is interested in containerization, but I haven't read what any of that looks like yet, or if it's just considered in the server space context.

 

[ChadD]

You are looking at this from the pov of an expert, try looking at this from a users perspective. Forget about Windows ok. Can someone use a Linux pc for daily use, find some software they like online or someone tells them about and install it, buy some peripheral and just start using it, have problems and fix them or at least try? All of this without knowing the terminal, bash, Linux internals, package managers, man, apt/rpm/yum, ssh, sudo etc? Notice I never mentioned games, thats a very small market, people use consoles. Without needing tech support from their techy friend/family.

It really doesn't matter how much its advanced, obviously its much much better as a desktop OS as well, but does it pass the above test? Both Windows and OSX pass this test.

The answer to all your questions is yes.

Can you use it daily... of course.
Can you find software and just install it... you sure can. Chances are you already use and have used Firefox, Thunderbird, Chrome, Opera, Openoffice, Libre Office, Bittorrent, Deluge, qTorrent, VLC, Gimp, Krita, Audacity, Filezilla, Handbrake, Pidgin, Blender, Inkscape, Scribus, SMplayer, GNUcash, Freemind, 7-zip, Calibre, Lightworks, Shortcut. I could go on... but those are the programs you will find on Best of Windows software lists the last few years. Guess what they are all really Linux programs and most of them will be in every major distros package manager as one click installs. Those that aren't all have flatpacks or .deb/.rpm installers on their websites. As for the old stand by argument winners... Adobe and MS both offer fully functioning cloud versions of their software and its what they prefer you buy. In the case of Photoshop it seems an easy choice of Gimp or Krita isn't good enough, their cloud version as much as I don't really like the idea of subbing to software runs very well and with larger files you notice their server farm performance for sure it does rival very high end workstations even on a chromebook if needed.

As for peripheral issues... I'm sorry there are no more of those then are are with making things work with Windows 10 or 7 depending how old/new it is. You will never have issues with the things people buy off the shelf like External hard drives and printers and the like. Most devices will just work when you plug them in (assuming you are keeping your kernel up to date with in reason), those that don't have drivers... they may not come on a disk and require a download from the MFG, however frankly most windows drivers don't come in the box anymore either. For every unit you can point to that doesn't work I can find another that won't work with OSX either yet no one argues its a deal breaker for Apple.

Many everyday users use Linux with little issue. The proper distro for the proper user is the only real hurdle, I wouldn't set most mass market type users up with a Gentoo or Arch, but Mint or Manjaro ? ya they can jump right in and be more productive then they are on windows... and I won't get a call in a year cause some porn site infected their machine with a bunch of crap ect.

I had an aunt who's kids I moved to Linux years back and they have never left... she goodness help her was calling me at least once a week for some windows crap (yes it was her fault always not windows) she insisted she needed windows cause she worked in a school and its what they use after all. I cant tell you how happy I was last year when she called and said the school is using these Chromebook things, so I bought one. Have you seen on of these things ? They are so fantastic. Haven't heard from her since.

Anyway this notion that Linux isn't usable by regular people is just silly. As I have said many times regular users can't be trusted to install any OS on their own... so switching on their own. Yes good luck. However you give someone a recent Dell laptop running ubunutu and they will be just fine... all their software will be their. Almost every cool program they here about will be in their package manager or they will find a Linux download link at the MFG site. For those types of users even gaming is covered... cause lets face it we all know the majority of regular people we know are gaming on facebook, all the candy crush saga and farm this or that shit invites I get all day have made that clear to me.

 

[BulletDust]

You are looking at this from the pov of an expert, try looking at this from a users perspective. Forget about Windows ok. Can someone use a Linux pc for daily use, find some software they like online or someone tells them about and install it, buy some peripheral and just start using it, have problems and fix them or at least try? All of this without knowing the terminal, bash, Linux internals, package managers, man, apt/rpm/yum, ssh, sudo etc? Notice I never mentioned games, thats a very small market, people use consoles. Without needing tech support from their techy friend/family.

It really doesn't matter how much its advanced, obviously its much much better as a desktop OS as well, but does it pass the above test? Both Windows and OSX pass this test.

My mother uses Ubuntu, she uses it fine.

The issue is we have Windows fanatics that are still 20 years in the past and they openly admit it!

As basic as one can possibly put it, OSX/macOS still makes substantial use of the terminal, if you can handle OSX/macOS, you can handle Linux. Linux is not in any way hard to use, it is simply not a Windows clone.

Yes, there is hardware that doesn't work 100% with Linux - However there's hardware that doesn't work 100% under Windows either! Generally speaking, but not always, Windows supports bleeding edge better while Linux supports older hardware better and usually takes a month or so to catch up with bleeding edge. The argument that the OS is irrelevant is total bullshit! The OS forms the interface between the user and the machine! The OS is a very important consideration and the decision regarding OS usage is not being left up to the consumer, it's being left up to Microsoft and that's wrong!

 

[Chuklr]

...

Yes, there is hardware that doesn't work 100% (EMPHASIS ADDED) with Linux - However there's hardware that doesn't work 100% (EMPHASIS ADDED) under Windows either! Generally speaking, but not always, Windows supports bleeding edge better while Linux supports older hardware better and usually takes a month or so to catch up with bleeding edge. The argument that the OS is irrelevant is total bullshit! The OS forms the interface between the user and the machine! The OS is a very important consideration and the decision regarding OS usage is not being left up to the consumer, it's being left up to Microsoft and that's wrong!

I think it would be more accurate to delete the "100%" that I have added Bold and Underline to because including that infers the hardware will work to some degree. I know that my Canon MG7250 Inkjet will not work with Linux and knew that at the time I purchased it. For a general user like myself this can work to limit my choices when using Linux, but I accept those limitations because I am aware that not all hardware manufacturers write drivers for Linux, and if they do, it may, or may not work with ones distro of choice without a certain amount, or any amount, of finagling which may result in a reduced level of functionality. In the case of Windows hardware can become unusable when, again, the manufacturer fails to write a driver for a new OS version. I don't post this to generate an argument, but to make clear that not all hardware works under all OSes.

Just my 2¢.

 

[Budwise]

Well, back on the topic of Feren OS. I booted it up in a VM to check it out and its really quite nice. I think any average Joe could easily make this OS a daily driver.

 

[Lunar]

My thoughts on Feren? Dumb. Plain and simple. There are so many Windows like distro's already, and this one is worse because it's a fork of a fork (MINT) of a fork (Ubuntu). I just can't think of a logical reason behind this. What would've made more sense is to create a fork of Cinnamon that is customized to look and feel like Windows, if that's what they wanted to accomplish. That way they could've focused all of their resources on the user experience instead of all the problems that come with packaging a full OS. Kind of a dumb approach in my book. Sure, the argument could be made that this is what the MINT folks did, but not quite. There are quite a few differences under the hood between Mint and Ubuntu, and Mint also run their own repo's. I would imagine that the Feren folks are leveraging the Mint repo's very heavily and only hosting their customization's. Kinda silly if you ask me, and a lot of wasted effort that could've gone into making another DE option for the entire community.

I mean, how many distros do we see come and go? Apricity and Parsix are the most recent casualties I can think of, and those both shutdown within the last couple of months. Running and maintaining a distro is a crapton of work.

Also, can a mod please move this the Linux forum?

 

[NoOther]

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/84541.html

dont know enough about linux to know whats your guys take on this OS ?

It just seems to me to be another one of the many distros packaged with a DM to look like Windows. I think maybe that is fine if you are trying to transition someone who is set in their ways from Windows to Linux, but one of the reasons I like to use different Linux distros is specifically because they are different and offer more to my user experience, like total customization of my display. This is one of the reasons I used enlightenment with debian for a long long time.

How many different ways can you install windows programs ? Don't say one cause your wrong. .exe, .msi, click to run, UWP, 20+ different third party installation managers some of which add proper uninstalls some of which don't. Progarms that use the registry for user settings, some that don't, some that use /user settings for settings some that don't. Windows is a fragmented mess when it comes to installation and orphan tracking.

Linux is less fragmented then windows is. Anyone saying differently doesn't really understand how either works. Sure their are 2 or 3 newer OPEN standards for companies to use for complete including lib downloads. Most commercial software companies have been using both .RPM and .DEB for ages and they are basically the exact same thing and take those companies no more then a few min to package up. Unlike windows everyone of them hooks into a proper PM that makes it easy to remove things without leaving behind files, libraries, registry values and directories. Say what you will about the multiple software packaging options for Linux at least they are all clean.

I agree with most of that until you get the "at least they are all clean". I can't count how many times I have tried to install a .deb or .rpm and ended up in dependency hell. That is why we have apt and yum.

With windows, a lot of the installers come with the dependencies in their packages already. But that isn't always the case either. So both systems have their own quirks. I like that many times I can install software on Windows without having to connect to the internet to find the dependencies for the package. But I also like the fact that in Linux I can get the most up to date versions of the dependencies I need and usually don't have to have multiple copies of outdated libraries.

 

[NoOther]

People just want to be able to use what they need, want or paid for. Why should anyone be obligated to use something that doesn't fit their needs? That's not a cop out, that's life. Where desktop Linux works well for people and that's what they want then by all means they should use it especially if Windows or macOS are failing them. But as you said in your last statement, people like me simply have far too much that doesn't work well with desktop Linux. There's just no point in me running desktop Linux as a host client when so much of the hardware isn't as nearly well utilized due to the lack of software supported under Linux that I use constantly.

I don't subscribe totally to the cop out, but I do believe BulletDust has a point here. Linux's desktop experience for home users has increased dramatically. It has always had a lot of customisable options and layouts that have far exceeded that of Windows, only now it is even easier to use and configure than ever before. You don't have to edit a bunch of conf files, or go through dependency hell to install the stuff you want. There are far easier package managers and programs to do all that for you and also keep your stuff up to date. By itself it is a fully polished product. That doesn't mean it is simple for any Windows or even Mac user to jump over to, but it is mature on its own. As far as full integration with other products and drivers, etc. there needs to be a big push by much increased user base to put pressure on companies to write drivers and integrate their software/hardware into the Linux platform. But certainly one should be able to get along just fine with Linux as their desktop if they take the time to learn it, just like they must have had to do when they used Windows for the first time.

 

[ChadD]

My thoughts on Feren? Dumb. Plain and simple. There are so many Windows like distro's already, and this one is worse because it's a fork of a fork (MINT) of a fork (Ubuntu). I just can't think of a logical reason behind this. What would've made more sense is to create a fork of Cinnamon that is customized to look and feel like Windows, if that's what they wanted to accomplish. That way they could've focused all of their resources on the user experience instead of all the problems that come with packaging a full OS. Kind of a dumb approach in my book. Sure, the argument could be made that this is what the MINT folks did, but not quite. There are quite a few differences under the hood between Mint and Ubuntu, and Mint also run their own repo's. I would imagine that the Feren folks are leveraging the Mint repo's very heavily and only hosting their customization's. Kinda silly if you ask me, and a lot of wasted effort that could've gone into making another DE option for the entire community.

I mean, how many distros do we see come and go? Apricity and Parsix are the most recent casualties I can think of, and those both shutdown within the last couple of months. Running and maintaining a distro is a crapton of work.

Also, can a mod please move this the Linux forum?

I agree completely I wrote this distro off the second I read it was a fork of Mint. In general I write off forks of Ubuntu for the same reason. Mint has wormed its way into many peoples hearts with a few nice user friendly things they do. Still I'm not of Mints fork of a fork status. So a fork of a fork of a fork. What a mess. You are 100% correct they should have focused on the DE started their and found some developers capable of building them a proper distro based on Ubuntu or Debian directly... or who knows if the right developers got on board perhaps one of the other base distros.

 

[ChadD]

there needs to be a big push by much increased user base to put pressure on companies to write drivers and integrate their software/hardware into the Linux platform.

This is something that has also really really picked up the last few years. Linux is maturing in that regard as well. The number of lines added to the Kernel the last 4-5 cycles is staggering.

Intel is really driving Linux development, and the Kernel actually had full support for their newest power settings before Windows did for instance.
Its almost a year old now... but looking at who is developing linux. Intel has been the #1 Linux developer as far as lines of code go the last few years.
https://www.linux.com/blog/top-10-developers-and-companies-contributing-linux-kernel-2015-2016

We are now almost at 4.12, and things seem to be picking up more then ever. 4.12 is going to add a bunch of DRM updates... and it seems like in the next few months Linux is going to have a lot of the "consumer" friendly DRM junk windows has. lol I joke seriously though development is getting better... and its nice to see a lot of the newer code for things like Sound card drivers ect are mostly now coming from the actual manufacturers.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-412-features&num=1

 

[heatlesssun]

I don't subscribe totally to the cop out, but I do believe BulletDust has a point here. Linux's desktop experience for home users has increased dramatically. It has always had a lot of customisable options and layouts that have far exceeded that of Windows, only now it is even easier to use and configure than ever before. You don't have to edit a bunch of conf files, or go through dependency hell to install the stuff you want. There are far easier package managers and programs to do all that for you and also keep your stuff up to date. By itself it is a fully polished product. That doesn't mean it is simple for any Windows or even Mac user to jump over to, but it is mature on its own. As far as full integration with other products and drivers, etc. there needs to be a big push by much increased user base to put pressure on companies to write drivers and integrate their software/hardware into the Linux platform. But certainly one should be able to get along just fine with Linux as their desktop if they take the time to learn it, just like they must have had to do when they used Windows for the first time.

I've said countless times that Linux can work for plenty of people, just like Windows does. And that's kind of the key here. As much as people in places like this speak of the problems with Windows, it does work well for many people and most just don't worrying about the OS on their laptop. It does the job and that's all they care about. Even if Linux could work as well or better, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

For those that purposely run Windows like myself we tend to know exactly why, just like those that purposely run Linux. Those that run Linux see the advantages over Windows and I don't dispute them. But sure, I'll dispute people who say that Linux is VR compatible. Sure technically, in reality, the support is token at best right now. Linux has a better update process. Not arguing that. But I update Windows devices all of the time and it's not like every time I don't something breaks or a machine gets bricked. I don't deny that there are issues with Windows updating and that the process could be improved. However, it would be impossible for me to run 8 different Windows 10 devices with a lots of different hardware and software if the Windows update were constantly blowing up significant things. Indeed, Windows users like me would be the most impacted from mass update failures because of the volume of Windows stuff we use.

Use want works, if desktop Linux works no one has said not use it. I never have.

 

[MrCrispy]

I agree with the point that the software installation story could be better. However, I don't think there's really anything intuitive about software installation on any of the platforms. At least in my experience, the first time or two was explained to me either in text (readme, or nowadays a webpage before download) or verbally by a friend. I think the difference in the platforms is that most people have encountered installing software at this point and have gone through that learning process. If the first personal computer experience involved opening a terminal and typing >apt install yourmom, then apt and deb files would be easymode for someone once they're a seasoned personal computer user.

Personally, I'm a fan of the macOS experience where you just drag a folder in your dmg to Applications. That's the simple experience where I hope Flatpack/Appimage/Snaps take Linux. I've heard people say Microsoft is interested in containerization, but I haven't read what any of that looks like yet, or if it's just considered in the server space context.

There is no learning process. You go to the web page of the software, click the download button, hit run, follow prompts. Many times the download page will even have screenshots. This is like installing software for Android/iOS where everything will have a button to take you to the app store, vs doing the same thing for say Ubuntu on phones.

 

[MrCrispy]

My mother uses Ubuntu, she uses it fine.

The issue is we have Windows fanatics that are still 20 years in the past and they openly admit it!

As basic as one can possibly put it, OSX/macOS still makes substantial use of the terminal, if you can handle OSX/macOS, you can handle Linux. Linux is not in any way hard to use, it is simply not a Windows clone.

Yes, there is hardware that doesn't work 100% with Linux - However there's hardware that doesn't work 100% under Windows either! Generally speaking, but not always, Windows supports bleeding edge better while Linux supports older hardware better and usually takes a month or so to catch up with bleeding edge. The argument that the OS is irrelevant is total bullshit! The OS forms the interface between the user and the machine! The OS is a very important consideration and the decision regarding OS usage is not being left up to the consumer, it's being left up to Microsoft and that's wrong!

Once again with the Windows attacks and comparisons. Why?

OSX has a terminal of course. But I'd guarantee a normal user never ever needs to use it and in fact most have probably never even opened it, just like most normal Windows users have no idea there's a cmd.exe or god forbid ppwershell. Linux was designed to be used from a shell, and it will always be what you are directed to do for any troubleshooting or fixing things, and is the main reason it cannot be considered beginner friendly.

Also its tiring to have everyone assume Linux is a superior OS just because and Windows is a 2nd class citizen that's only popular because of big bad evil MS. There are plenty of things technically superior in Windows, just like there are in Linux. Even on the desktop, just to take an example, Linux file managers suck, all of them are basically cheap Explorer clones.

 

[MrCrispy]

Also since this is about beginner friendly OS's, one of the things I've done for a few friends who couldn't afford new laptops and asked me for help is the following - I buy old Thinkpads on ebay, add a small SSD (you can get 128GB on sale or cheap) and install Mint. These old Thinkpads were solidly built and with SSD are fast enough for anything. I might try changing it to Feren

 

[heatlesssun]

There is no learning process. You go to the web page of the software, click the download button, hit run, follow prompts. Many times the download page will even have screenshots. This is like installing software for Android/iOS where everything will have a button to take you to the app store, vs doing the same thing for say Ubuntu on phones.

Installing software on Windows is almost beyond simple, do a web search, click a few buttons and that's about even, even for advanced tools. Not saying that's a superior method, indeed it the source of tons of issues with Windows malware but nothing that takes any skill. And the stores, Steam, Windows Store, Origin work pretty much like mobile OS stores, so totally familiar to almost everyone these days.

 

[ChadD]

Once again with the Windows attacks and comparisons. Why?

OSX has a terminal of course. But I'd guarantee a normal user never ever needs to use it and in fact most have probably never even opened it, just like most normal Windows users have no idea there's a cmd.exe or god forbid ppwershell. Linux was designed to be used from a shell, and it will always be what you are directed to do for any troubleshooting or fixing things, and is the main reason it cannot be considered beginner friendly.

Also its tiring to have everyone assume Linux is a superior OS just because and Windows is a 2nd class citizen that's only popular because of big bad evil MS. There are plenty of things technically superior in Windows, just like there are in Linux. Even on the desktop, just to take an example, Linux file managers suck, all of them are basically cheap Explorer clones.

Linux is superior. Windows is second class. There is nothing technically superior about windows at all in anyway shape or form. Linux file managers vary cause there are more then one but most are superior to explorer which is only good at allowing noobs to F their systems up.

There was a time when MS-DOS was the go to for a MS PC... and they marketed them as easy and fun for the whole family. So I'm not sure when every ones opinion of the average user dropped to the point where we think they can't figure out a few basic command line commands. Not that frankly they are needed anymore then the Apple command line is. The only difference between MacOS and Linux... is the Unix their kernels are forked from, and the lockdown polish Apple gives OSx. I will agree OSx is easier to use then Linux its also easier to use then windows. Still osx advanced users are likely going to know how to use the command line. Its not rocket science. The basic GNU commands haven't changed since the 80s, and both OSX, Linux, BSD, Solaris pretty much every OS anyone uses outside of windows share the basic Unix file structure and commands. Learn one and the rest all make sense.

 

[heatlesssun]

Linux is superior. Windows is second class. There is nothing technically superior about windows at all in anyway shape or form. Linux file managers vary cause there are more then one but most are superior to explorer which is only good at allowing noobs to F their systems up.

Ok, Linux is superior. That doesn't necessarily translate into universal across the board practical benefits. Desktop Linux certainly isn't superior to Windows for gaming purposes. It is superior to Windows as far as local malware is concerned. And the ironic thing is that in both cases the reason has nothing to do with the relative strengths and weaknesses of either OS, both are mostly a result of Windows desktop market share.

In any case everyone in this forum is using what works for them and if Linux were superior that superior with as few issues as you say we'd all be using it.

 

[Frobozz]

There is no learning process. You go to the web page of the software, click the download button, hit run, follow prompts. Many times the download page will even have screenshots. This is like installing software for Android/iOS where everything will have a button to take you to the app store, vs doing the same thing for say Ubuntu on phones.

The learning process is there. It may be extremely shallow, but it happened. You even point out the download page having screenshots. The very first time you had to install some extra application (maybe even one of the easy mode stores) you had some sort of instruction. There's nothing intuitive about downloading an exe, being prompted to configure it, etc... Once you learn it, they're all degrees of easy. However, if all you know is one method, then it becomes the way you expect it to be so anything else is hard or confusing.
If you want to experience the learning process, go help an elderly person with Windows 10.. I'd bet they'd happen into the Store firstly before finding some installer on a website.

and I'm really not trying to be combative in this reply. I honestly think we feel Windows is easier because it's the process we've been exposed to for the past 25 years, and not because there's anything intuitive about it.

 

[ChadD]

Ok, Linux is superior. That doesn't necessarily translate into universal across the board practical benefits. Desktop Linux certainly isn't superior to Windows for gaming purposes. It is superior to Windows as far as local malware is concerned. And the ironic thing is that in both cases the reason has nothing to do with the relative strengths and weaknesses of either OS, both are mostly a result of Windows desktop market share.

In any case everyone in this forum is using what works for them and if Linux were superior that superior with as few issues as you say we'd all be using it.

No linux is superior for games as well... you are confusing software availability with technical superiority. Yes many windows games have been ported and sure ports run better on windows. From a technical stand point no I disagree. Linux and BSD are both superior systems for gaming. The issue is the software not the system. Sony has no issues with the right software, the PS4 software base is faster then MSs junk... every non paid off console developer will say as much on the record.

Are there more game titles in windows yes.
Do most windows ports for Linux run better in windows yes.
Do games coded for Linux with no wrapper junk ect run better in windows NO. Dota2 is the best example... runs better in Linux hands down. There are other examples... War thunder / metro Games that 100% run better in Linux then windows.

Quality and Number of titles are not the same thing.

Once MS pisses off the game industry enough over the next few years... don't worry the numbers of native titles issue will drop as well. That sounds angry lol... regardless all the current big game engines are now fully Linux coded, so newer games from here out shipping with Unreal4, and newer versions of unity and cry ect are all going to perform very closely with Win 10... and the fastest stripped down Linux distros are likely going to be faster for most over Win 10. You'll see benchmarks where Win 10 is going to show 3-5% bumps over Ubuntu in some of the newer engines... but if your really into gaming on Linux ClearLinux/Arch/Gentoo distros will easily bump your FPS up 10-15% over ubuntu.

 

[BulletDust]

Once again with the Windows attacks and comparisons. Why?

Where in that post am I attacking Windows?

 

[heatlesssun]

No linux is superior for games as well... you are confusing software availability with technical superiority.

Yes many windows games have been ported and sure ports run better on windows. From a technical stand point no I disagree. Linux and BSD are both superior systems for gaming. The issue is the software not the system. Sony has no issues with the right software, the PS4 software base is faster then MSs junk... every non paid off console developer will say as much on the record.

Are there more game titles in windows yes.
Do most windows ports for Linux run better in windows yes.
Do games coded for Linux with no wrapper junk ect run better in windows NO. Dota2 is the best example... runs better in Linux hands down. There are other examples... War thunder / metro Games that 100% run better in Linux then windows.

What good is technical superiority if stuff doesn't work? That's just not an argument that works in the real world. Source 2 games, sure, they run well under Linux. 2 zillion frames a second versus 2.4 zillion frames a second doesn't really mean much. Superior means superior, qualifying it means nope.

Quality and Number of titles are not the same thing.

Since Windows gets virtually every PC gaming title, quality or otherwise while Linux doesn't by a long shot, this point is irrelevant. Desktop Linux isn't getting quality games that Windows isn't, and a lot less.

Once MS pisses off the game industry enough over the next few years... don't worry the numbers of native titles issue will drop as well.

And this one has been going on for five years now with the launch of Windows 8. The result? Windows still is completely dominant and getting more games than ever and in absolute terms has widened the gaming gap over both Linux and macOS. And there's now a new gaming ecosystem in VR that's probably never going to be on Macs and what's there for Linux is still test scraps.

The difference in the count of games between Windows and Linux on Steam is GREATER now than when Steam didn't even support Linux. That's remarkable.

 

[KarsusTG]

Every once in a while we get a distro that just rocks. I don't believe this is going to be one. Honestly they come pretty few and far between.