[AsyncAwait]

> IMO Linux still has pretty poor graphics drivers.

IMO Intel is generally very well supported with the open-source kernel driver and amdgpu is getting there. This feels like a trope that always gets repeated but never updated, kind of like "you need CLI to use Linux".

> the whole Wayland thing is in a weird spot right now too

The whole Wayland thing is already much smoother for many than X11 ever was and it actually takes security seriously. I am running GNOME on Wayland full time since 2018 and by this point there's nothing I miss from X11, any specifics?

[Skunkleton]

> there's nothing I miss from X11, any specifics?

There are plenty of applications that still depend on Xwayland, and the nvidia proprietary can't accelerate these. There are some other weird stability issues related to the nvidia driver as of mid last year at least. Wayland is missing a bunch of features from X, which bothers some people. I personally miss network transparency from X. That said, I do run wayland full time, and have for a few years now. I just can't recommend it without reservations.

I can't comment on catalyst, or AMDGPU on current generation AMD gaming graphics cards. What I can say is that you can pretty much blindly assume that whatever gpu you want to buy will work well under Windows.

> IMO Intel is generally very well supported

I would add AMDGPU to that list as well. Still, AMDGPU is new, and Intel doesn't offer a high end graphics card. nVidia proprietary causes problems, such as those it causes for wayland. I am very happy with my AMDGPU compatible WX2100 for linux, but it is certainly not a good gaming GPU.

[AsyncAwait]

Sure, nvidia is problematic, hence Linuses now famous rant, but that's to be expected, they don't cooperate at all.

I understand it may be the only option for high-end gaming, but in that case one probably doesn't have switchable graphics, which causes the most issues, so X/Xwayland is the one compromise one has to make.

This however does not mean that Linux graphics is a mess in general. I have both Intel and amdgpu machines that work out of the box, no problem. And this does not ever gets asked in relation to macOS, because everyone "knows" nvidia just wasn't a thing there in recent years. So perhaps we should assume nvidia just isn't a thing as well, unless you're willing to put up with crap?

So does Linux and Linux on the desktop work for everybody? No. Does it work as good for a high-end gaming machine as Windows? No. Does Windows work as the most productive fronend/backend/systems OS for programming out there? No. Does Linux? Yeah.

So while they both have their strengths and weaknesses, Linux works perfectly well for a lot of use-cases, the graphics driver situation included.

As for Wayland not being network-transparent, the fact that it worked in X in the way it did was in fact a massive hack and a security hole and while sometimes convenient, I personally didn't need GUI over SSH almost ever, apart from playing around, so I'd take a proper security architecture, like Wayland has, over network transparency.

This is also not a feature supported by Windows/macOS, so not really a point against Linux in my book.

The early complaints, like screenshots etc. re Wayland were all resolved some time ago too.

[Skunkleton]

> X/Xwayland is the one compromise one has to make.

No you don't. You could use Windows.

> So perhaps we should assume nvidia just isn't a thing as well.

Sure, that is what I do. How do you explain that to a novice that is just trying to run linux on their computer for the first time?

Look, I use linux full time for most tasks, both at home and at work. Professionally I am a kernel engineer. I am very pro linux, and pro new linux users. I think that we do linux a disservice by pretending that there aren't issues. The simple fact is that the linux graphics experience is not seamless like it is on other operating systems. We shouldn't pretend that it is just because experts can make it work.

[AsyncAwait]

> No you don't. You could use Windows.

Of course, provided you don't mind the ads, the telemetry, the updates that delete your files [1], this is assuming you're actually interested in Linux.

> How do you explain that to a novice that is just trying to run linux

That perhaps you do look for Linux HW before purchasing and do not install Linux on any old crap?

Look, I could hand somebody a Chromebook and ask them to try how well Windows would run on it. The experience wouldn't be great. Same on a Talos II or some other obviously problematic HW for Windows where Linux fares much better, but it's a pointless game.

Most people don't run into this situation because BestBuy laptops come preinstalled with Windows. If they came with Linux, there'd be a reverse situation.

But with macOS people somehow don't assume they can run it on a random POS HW and indeed know that it's best to get one designed to run macOS.

Why is the standard Linux is evaluated against always different?

Just get a Linux-compatible machine and you're good, that's it. I know as I've done it many times now.

It's not about pretending there aren't issues. But I've realized we're being held back by always trying to snatch this mythical 'new user' with his BestBuy laptop, or someone with a knowingly problematic HW, (unless nVidia cooperates, there's little we could do) and Windows will continue to come preinstalled on the majority of PCs, so a mass exodus isn't happening anytime soon.

What we could do, instead of being this "honest" and just reinforcing the idea that Linux doesn't work, we could be even more frank and just say avoid this vendor, but this and this one is fine.

Reinforcing the idea that Linux is crap because of some shitty corporation that refuses to support it gives too much importance and power to said corporation when they don't deserve it.

1 - https://www.tomsguide.com/news/massive-windows-10-fail-new-u...