[ruszki]

Linux didn’t work reliably on my laptops in the past 10 years. And I mean basic things, like booting up, or showing a desktop without serious glitches. And all the time problems were non deterministic, and printing just generic unhelpful “something is wrong” errors, if there were any. I try it every year, whether the situation is better, and in the past 25 years, the answer is that barely. Yes, you can have terminal with very basic settings almost every time, but if you want anything more, even just like proper resolution, then it’s still a lottery. The interesting thing is that before that I was luckier, I could hack Linux to many things (I would definitely not say “install”).

And of course like in the past decades any time, you can always use Linux in VMs. Very reliably. So I stick to that.

[fsflover]

> Linux didn’t work reliably on my laptops in the past 10 years. And I mean basic things, like booting up, or showing a desktop

Which laptops? Do they all have Nvidia graphics? This is really vague. Your comment is not helpful, and it just looks like usual Linux bashing from people who don't know what they're talking about.

[ruszki]

And how it would be helpful for me to specify? Do you think that I just gave up immediately, and didn’t try to solve it for days and weeks? Do you think you can help me more than that without the exact errors which I got? Do you think I care about a solution to laptops which I don’t even have? Do you think any kind of blanket term like “NVIDIA whatever doesn’t work” would be even true?

I specified a few times, and I got zero relevant information. My time is more valuable than reading comments which are like “it worked for me with <something-which-is-not-even-in-my-spec>”.

[soco]

FWIW I have Mint on two grandparents laptops and I agree with the parent comment. I gave up doing any updates on them, I just wipe off everything once a year and reinstall from scratch. Even though it's only browser and music player and nobody touches the settings (unless there was a misclick) yet still last time the desktop came to show through the application windows so I had to wipe it again and lo it worked.

[fsflover]

1. You didn't name the laptops just like the OP.

2. It seems you're using hardware designed for Windows. It's like trying to install Windows on a Macbook: You're on your own here. Don't blame Microsoft or Apple for your issues.

[hju22_-3]

You know, reading through your replies in this thread is kind of just sad. You selectively pick only tiny parts of comments to reply to, while ignoring the points that are made and the plethora of very, very common issues highlighted.

Sadly, it's also a very expected answer from someone who probably likes Linux a lot. No matter what argument is made, no matter what examples or proof are included, irregardless of the number of such things, it's all just user error in the end.

When the argument is that Linux only _properly_ supports a small subset of devices for _desktop computing,_ and the counter-argument is that it does, yet a person mentions very, very incredibly common issues . . . Is the proper response to say, to effect, you're the one at fault by not using the right hardware? No, no it's not. Given that so, so, _so_ many experience these kinds of basic UX problems means that either Linux doesn't actually properly support a lot of different hardware (despite what many obsessed Linux users screech/preach) or it supports them perfectly fine and the tons upon tons upon tons of people who experience these issues are all the ones at fault and in no way, shape or form does Linux lack from a well known general UX problem.

Even worse is this, honestly, moronic take:

> 2. It seems you're using hardware designed for Windows. It's like trying to install Windows on a Macbook: You're on your own here. Don't blame Microsoft or Apple for your issues.

If I wasn't before convinced that you aren't completely out of touch, I am now. The primary subject of _desktop_ users _are_ Windows users with Windows machines. Goodness gracious, I honestly do not understand this take. Most of Linux's not-always-optimal desktop hardware support comes from a plethora of formerly Windows machines.

It's honestly just so weird to argue that installing Linux on a Windows machine is in any way shape or form as bad as installing it on a Mac.

Even more, Linux-only devices, as in Linux-first devices, are more of a newer thing. There have been initiatives before, that have fallen through or not gained a lot of traction. It's not until relatively recently that companies making Linux-first devices for _desktop_ computing became a real thing. And even then, the Steam Deck blows them out of the water by mostly _removing_ the desktop-part of Linux and replacing it with a homebrewed one. Although you can still use a regular desktop "mode." And yet, even with such companies, Windows machines stand for a massive section of the Linux desktop computing userbase.

Ironically, this is exactly the kind of argument I'd expect from an obsessed and out of touch Linux user. Because it makes no sense, disregards the points other potential users make and doesn't even properly address them.

[fsflover]

Thank you for an interesting, thoughtful reply.

> You selectively pick only tiny parts of comments to reply to

Yes, I nitpick on some smaller things when I know the poster is wrong on that matter (and I feel it's sufficiently important).

> while ignoring the points that are made and the plethora of very, very common issues highlighted

It doesn't mean I think there are no issues at all. Often I just don't have anything to add to them. Do I always have to say "it's true" to everything else? I never said "and therefore you're wrong about everything".

> Linux only _properly_ supports a small subset of devices for _desktop computing

This is true. However what you conclude from this may differ. It doesn't mean that Linux is a lost case and everybody should use Windows. It doesn't mean that companies can't switch to Linux. Very often they choose the hardware for the next upgrade and nothing prevents them from choosing a known supported hardware, however rare it could be.

Also, in every Linux thread there is always a large number of people with vague, unhelpful Linux bashing like "I'm trying Linux every other week and there are countless issues every single time". This is not actionable, it doesn't help anybody to choose the hardware. It's just a shallow dismissal, which is against the HN guidelines. I don't understand who upvotes that.

> Is the proper response to say, to effect, you're the one at fault by not using the right hardware?

This is not exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that you should manage your expectations when using random hardware with a free OS. Not only the Linux developers weren't paid to support every hardware in world -- in many cases, the hardware vendors actively fight against this. Statistically, it must be a really large number of devices reliably working. How else could Linux reach >5% without anything sold in stores?

> either Linux doesn't actually properly support a lot of different hardware

Yes, this is the case.

> Even worse is this, honestly, moronic take

I stand by what I said. You can't demand any OS to work on every piece of hardware in the world; not even mega-corps can achieve that. You have to keep in mind the reality, otherwise this is a Nirvana fallacy. I would understand if someone said "I'm unlucky, Linux doesn't work on my hardware". Instead, they say "Linux barely works on a limited set of hardware that it was designed for" or "Linux on the desktop failed and will never succeed" (actual quotes from this discussion).

> The primary subject of _desktop_ users _are_ Windows users with Windows machines.

This is very true, and it's a sad state of affairs that for Linux to grow it has an impossible task of supporting all those different Windows machines. I recommend every Windows user to try installing Linux. At the same time, I do not guarantee that it will work, but there is a good chance. You will likely loose some features like suspend, but your machine will be faster, more secure, private and supported for the lifetime if you're lucky. Also you should be able to pay somebody to fix your problems, which will fix them for every other user. This is not true for proprietary software btw.

> It's honestly just so weird to argue that installing Linux on a Windows machine is in any way shape or form as bad as installing it on a Mac.

This is not what I said. I said that you're misplacing the responsibility here. The user should accept their responsibility for buying a "Windows-certified" hardware and not blame their problems on volunteers. They should thank the volunteer when it works and understand the reasons when it doesn't (and consider helping to fix the issues, too).

> And even then, the Steam Deck blows them out of the water

What are you talking about? Most users buy it as a separate device to play games, just like a console. It does help Linux to grow, but the comparison to Linux-first general-purpose devices doesn't seem relevant here.

[HumblyTossed]

Works reliably on mine. Windows 11 on the other hand, feels beta.