Gamers Nexus might start including Linux gaming tests in their hardware reviews
Pretty exciting times ahead as Valve might finally release SteamOS to more hardware. This amount of Linux desktop coverage would be unimaginable few years ago.
You're viewing a single thread.
I feel like that's good for the wrong reasons.
I hope GN complains about how certain things that should have been fixed years ago are still broken because of bike shedding.
It is a weird decision to me though, because as much as I like Linux, the Linux desktop isn't at all a stable platform. Your experience can be vastly different depending on what distro, mesa version, display server, driver, etc you use. So in a way, I wonder if they'll bother to show "the best case scenario" or just go with what's most popular.
Hot take: If they are doing it, they should use what's most popular and if it's bad, sh!t on it, as that seems to be the only way to get long standing issues fixed...(look at pop!os and KDE as an example)
I mean, Steve said they were looking into it specifically if SteamOS comes to the desktop market. So that is the benchmark they would use, and they use consistent sets of test hardware across their product category benchmarks. It's not a secret what their methodology is/would look like. And they have a reputation for calling out shit when they see it. No offense, but your hot take seems pretty ice cold to me
Show me a stable windows desktop.(The same applies to Windows.)
I mean, Windows is undeniably more stable than certain linux configurations. Nothing will ever be 100% stable, but if you compare Windows to basically any rolling release distro, Windows is gonna be more stable. That's just the nature of the two things.
You say it's because of configs etc., i.e. problems caused by the user. That is a serious difference. You should also narrow it down to SteamOS, Garuda, Bazzite, CachyOS or one of the other distributions designed for gaming. After all, these are also experiencing the most growth in gaming from people leaving Windows behind.
Windows and stable? So blue screens during OS installation are stable? Windows didn't catch on because it was stable. It stole the most important thing and then the dirty gag contracts where Intel and Nvidia were also involved. That's the only reason why this trickery has prevailed. Windows is and always has been rubbish, but MS knew how to damage competitors and secure a monopoly position. Windows and stable are a joke.
Every OS was programmed by humans and contains errors. This does not apply to just one OS or the other. In addition, faulty software also runs on faulty hardware. From this point of view, stable is no longer possible with today's CPUs, even if you counteract this via microcode.
Literally read past the word "configurations" and you'll see that I'm talking about how a distro is configured by its maintainers AKA the meta level, not fucking dotfiles. Grow a brain.
That's why I mentioned certain distributions afterwards. But thinking doesn't seem to be one of your strengths. If you are going to compare then only with distributions that focus on gaming. Everything else is completely idiotic with the huge variety of distributions available. Of course it's easy to choose a completely different one and then make mimimi... but you don't try to install current games in ms-dos, for example... that would be just as much of an inane comparison.
blue screens during OS installation are stable?
You’re acting like millions of people are affected by this regularly. Let’s pick out the myriad of issues Linux installs reveal to folks. The research necessary just to get started scares most people away.
What do you have to tinker with first so that you can only install a local account? Or so that the whole thing also runs on older hardware without TPM. People also have to look on the web to see what needs to be fixed during the installation... and then, depending on the version, install Manuel group policies and everything. You also have to fiddle around with Windows, which makes more and more people switch.What do you first have to fiddle around with the OS installation so that you can install with a local account? Or so that the whole thing also runs on older hardware without TPM. People also have to look on the web to see what needs to be fixed during the installation... and then, depending on the version, install Manuel group policies and everything. You also have to fiddle around with Windows, which makes more and more people switch.
When you boot Mint OS onto a Mac it literally doesn’t have functioning wifi.
You do not have to fiddle with windows as much as Linux. That’s ridiculous.
I wouldn't buy a Mac in the first place just to slap another OS on it. Why an example with a closed ecosystem? Do you even get Windows installed there and if so, with how much fiddling? There are reasons why MS uses its own linux distribution internally. Even with tabs etc and functions that other distributions have been using for decades, Windows still has problems. So stable that you still use the NT kernel... because ms is no longer capable of programming something like that and it will take several Windows versions to get rid of legacy issues... After all, the UI is no longer a single process that regularly kills the entire desktop.
I’m sorry but you’re just never going to convince me that you have to tinker more with Windows than you do with Linux OS’s if you want to use either as your daily driver.
It was never my intention to say that you have to tinker more with Windows, but that you have to tinker with Windows just like with Linux. The same applies to Macs.
Oh come the fuck on dude.
Are you serious? Fuck windows I’ve been off it for over a decade but nothing compares to windows and Mac OS for stability. That’s a cornerstone issue with Linux adoption. People don’t have time to hunt down drivers and tweak shit all the time when they need to do their jobs.
I like Linux man but this is another example of Linux users forgetting that the vast majority of people are not even close to as computer literate as we are. If you can’t pop it out of a box/download it, install it with a few clicks, and immediately get to work, it will not be mass-adopted. Period. All the external drives/USB/etcher shit makes people run for the door, let alone explaining to them about downloading and checking drivers and such.
Hell how many distro‘s start without Wi-Fi even working?
I feel like stability has a different definition for some of us Linux users.
Stability to me as a Linux user is a non-issue. I have so many backup and snapshot solutions to a point that any problem isn't even a threat. I don't consider what if's because I can just walk around anything, even if the entire boot drive corrupts.
Also, what do you mean by stable? The OS? The entire system under heavy graphical load?
Some more, some less as far as Linux goes, but if we're comparing Windows to a peer like... KDE?
Yeah, they're about just as buggy.
Does Linux have an issue in that the bugginess is almost directly tied to the experience level of the end user? ...Yeah, but at that level, it just means no problem is impassable, you just don't know what you're doing. 😬
“You just have to know what you’re doing” is not going to warm the general public up to Linux dude lol