Slashdot Mirror
Gaming On Linux With Newest AMD Catalyst Driver Remains Slow
An anonymous reader writes The AMD Catalyst binary graphics driver has made a lot of improvements over the years, but it seems that NVIDIA is still leading in the Linux game with their shared cross-platform driver. Tests done by Phoronix of the Catalyst 15.3 Linux Beta found on Ubuntu 15.04 shows that NVIDIA continues leading over AMD Catalyst with several different GPUs on BioShock Infinite, a game finally released for Linux last week. With BioShock Infinite on Linux, years old mid-range GeForce GPUs were clobbering the high-end Radeon R9 290 and other recent AMD GPUs tested. The poor showing wasn't limited to BS:I though as the Metro Redux games were re-tested too on the new drivers and found the NVIDIA graphics still ran significantly faster and certainly a different story than under Windows.
It's been this way for years. ATI/AMD support for Linux is unbelievably bad. nVidia support is basically perfect, with the exception of the open-source issue. In the past, I've bought a brand new (nVidia) video card, right after it was released, brought it home, and got it running under Linux, day 1, with no headaches. If you want decent Linux graphics, go nVidia.
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
Gaming on Linux is done with NVIDIA.
Playing the same game on Linux and Windows.
More games are turning up on Steam with a Linux port, frame rate may or may not be higher but the controls are far more responsive under Linux making the same games just nicer to play on Linux.
#jokes
Greekgeek
This is changing. Rather fast. I have 50 Linux games on steam, and all run fine on my 4 year old Core i5 and AMD 6630M laptop. Sure detail levels aren't great, but they aren't bad either. I get 40+fps on war thunder. Still downloading bioshock.
Surprisingly I have yet to have an issue running any of these games. I'm not running Ubuntu (or other debian based), so I expected issues. I am going to experiment with my desktop later when I get time to put a modern linux distro on.
Gaming on Linux is looking good actually.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Gaming on Linux is looking good actually.
I suppose that depends on what you want out of it, and your point of view...
I have over 2,000 games on Steam, the vast majority of which will NEVER get a Linux version...
Some of my computers currently run Windows 7, some run 8.1... All will get a free upgrade to Windows 10...
When games start to come out ONLY for Linux, let me know... until then, what exactly is the point?
---
Don't misunderstand me, I get the value of Linux for servers, but I just don't see a use for it for desktop machines, other than perhaps to keep Microsoft on their toes. Beyond that, it strikes me as quite useless for desktops, other than for geeks to feel superior for some reason.
Windows was a mess 20 years ago, today? It just works... (hey, isn't that Apple's line?)
I thought about my last reply...
I wanted to add one more thing... It seems that the primary reason for most people to run Linux is because "it isn't Windows"...
This doesn't strike me as enough of a reason for it to go anywhere. You and I post on Slashdot, so we don't count. The average person uses Windows, has for most of their computer life, and sees no reason to change.
The only other visible option is the Mac with OS X, and I think some people do look at that, until they see the price and then they run away.
---
So I guess the question is... other than "It isn't Windows", what reason does John and Jane Q. Public have to even think about Linux?
The point? I don't know there is one precisely. I game on linux because it is my preferred platform. I have been using it for so long now I actually have a ls.bat file on my windows machine somewhere.
Linux is fairly useful on the desktop. I did my entire honours project some years ago under linux (including PCB/circuit design and embedded code). In general, I have found it to 'just work' in modern times, unless you are doing something exotic. Beyond that I would love to see it used more in industry. It would be much easier to manage a SCADA under linux, where the bastard operator from hell can't plug in a usb stick with 1002 viruses and I can ssh in to troubleshoot coms problems. Yeah you can disable USB storage under windows too, but it is a PITA.
I am not saying the average user should be running linux (though I suppose we can see how Steam machines do), but it is rather nice to be able to start up a game at home without having to reboot.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Like who uses Linux anyhow? People who don't like Windows. People who don't have windows installed. People who do other stuff on Linux and don't want to reboot to play end reboot again to do work...
The people beta-testing SteamOS or the Steam hardware? Steam basically ran a competition over Christmas part of which involved early access to the hardware.
Beyond that, who wouldn't? Indie gamers have a vast wealth of software at their disposal that'll run on any old machine that they haven't got a Windows licence for. It's literally the "thorw this in the kid's bedroom" kind of hardware and you can play an awful lot of games. Turn on big picture mode or go as far as putting the SteamOS iso in the drive and you have a self-contained gaming platform that you don't need to manage for them.
1/3rd of my Steam library is available on Linux. It's far from what it used to be. I could keep a kid/teenager entertained for YEARS with what I have on Linux.
And then include family sharing, streaming, etc. and they can play all those games while I am.
That all depends on the graphics you use. I run many games on my 6 year old i7 920, with an equally old NVIDIA GTX 265. The card is old, but for the games I like, it is more than sufficient. It all depends on how much 3D stuff you want to use.
I'm tired of Windows :-) And I don't want to pay a license to be able to use my hardware.
Linux has many problems, but it is improving, and the flux of gamers is causing changes. It will adapt to the needs of the user base, and that base is changing.
Also, I also develop, not only play, and development on Linux is super easy to set up.
That said, my media center/big view machine in the living room is on Windows, because most games are for Windows currently. Could be nice to change to Linux too, but it's okay. I got that license for free from Microsoft anyway, when studying CS. (And it'll upgrade to Win 10 on it when it comes)
My desktops however are fine with Linux, and I can always stream to them from the living room machine if I have to. In the future, I'm putting some Raspberry Pi's to my other TV's, and just share through them, for the steam machine on every TV :-)
Sorry, this is just bullshit. I've never had to check for HW support under Linux for years, everything simply worked out of box. It's a much better experience than under Windows.
The same thing about software. I can download any software I need even without googling for it or paying.
These things are about momentum. Diesel is really common here (my boss drives a diesel hatchback, and gets incredible km/l). Every filling station here stocks diesel. Is it a better technology? Maybe... It is really expensive to fix when it breaks. So it is in a way a really good analogy for Linux. In the some places (the USA), everyone only uses it for servers (big haulage trucks) but in other places it gets used everywhere.
There are pros and cons to every OS. Linux is my preferred platform because I am familiar with it, and I like the interface. I have not delusions of superiority. I have had good experiences with hardware support, and apart from printers (I do not own one, so it is a non-issue for me), I have not worried about linux support for hardware since around 2005. Also, a lot of hardware seems to work better: 3g modems for example - they don't require me to install the operators bs bloatware to use under linux. They just work...
I think the point here, is someone is making an effort to build diesel filling stations. You can still get petrol and it will never go away, but you now have options, and each has pros and cons. I like diesel. It has really good torque. Modern diesels have come a long way in terms of reliability (early diesels were terrible). They aren't perfect, but they do the job.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
You can probably thank apple for this, to some extent. The growing popularity of the Mac has meant that porting there has become viable and this means fairly generic C++ with Open GL and unixy OS expectations. From there to linux is really just a change of compiler flags.
Well, that and steam.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
While AMD fans cry foul, it really is true that AMD drivers are worse on Windows than nVidia drivers. It isn't the massive gap like on Linux, but it is there. OpenGL stuff sees particular issues, with slower performance or even stuff outright failing to run on AMD cards, but other issues as well. My 7970M in my laptop has been headaches since I got the thing and only recently got up to a competent level.
Problems aside, they are just slow with updates for things like Crossfire. Multi-GPU support generally requires game specific profiles to work well, or even work at all. nVidia is quite fast at getting their SLI profiles out, but AMD hasn't had an update to Crossfire profiles since 2014.
AMD just doesn't focus on the software side of things like nVidia does. Their hardware development team seems to be top notch but their software development is lacking.
I must admit that depsite what I think is an awesome look, thinking of a modern ATI/AMD graphics card, I can't help but feel that the company/brand reeks of it being "el cheapo". I sometimes wonder if they have too few people working on drivers and the technical side, and that most of the money goes into marketing.
I wanted to add one more thing... It seems that the primary reason for most people to run Linux is because "it isn't Windows"...
I think you're confusing cause and effect, people ask why you don't use Windows and the answer is because you want to use something other than Windows. Particularly when the person you're talking to doesn't feel the same things chafing, maybe even though it works for you it doesn't work for me and it's not just about "being different" but that we have different needs or priorities. Just like every graphics tool discussion usually ends up with why you don't use Photoshop. It's the way of things when one tool has ~90% market share.
This doesn't strike me as enough of a reason for it to go anywhere. You and I post on Slashdot, so we don't count. The average person uses Windows, has for most of their computer life, and sees no reason to change.
The "average person" also used Internet Explorer when it had 95% market share and was really slow at seeking alternatives. Because IE6 worked because sites had to work in IE6, the mainstream only follows once a significant portion of early adopters have led the way. Not that Linux has too many trendsetters, we're "experts" but soccer moms don't take car advice from race car drivers. They want to know what works for a soccer mom.
Market share is a battle won one step at the time. Either you double 1% to 2% and get a few more to care or you halve to 0.5% and a few less care. That the 90%+ didn't care and still don't care is something that might change if you get the pebble rolling into a landslide, but if the pebble's stuck you're stuck. It's not about making Linux a killer gaming platform, it's about making gaming not be a Linux-killer. If that makes it viable for another 1%, you're making progress.
So I guess the question is... other than "It isn't Windows", what reason does John and Jane Q. Public have to even think about Linux?
Still not much, I must admit I thought Linux would be different after playing with it for 15+ years. On the other hand, it hasn't faded away into obscurity. It does get significantly easier and better to use, but so does the competition. And times change, it almost had it once when we had wired desktops plugged in the wall. Then mobile came and sleep modes and power management matters. Wired went Wireless and Bluetooth and so on. And now recently touch is the new hype. I think when it's more like a car, where a car from ten years ago is very much the same that Linux will catch up. It's morphing too much.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
What does Linux in 2015 do that Windows does not?
Hard to say. I've never managed to get Windows to do what I expected. Typically it hides functions behind "user friendly" expressions and settings that can't be tweaked individually without finding the keys in the register.
Getting Windows 7 to function properly was a nightmare that required a lot of Googling just to figure out what different network settings actually meant.
I find it very hard to answer your questions since it's so hard to tell what Windows actually does these days.
Meh, I play games maybe once or twice a week, and I use Linux for all my work and hobby related things, so I do *not* want to reboot into Windows every time I want to relax a bit.
D00d you should totally create a gui in visual Basic to see if you can track an IP address.
I started gaming again over the cold Winter months, I have a Windows 7 desktop with Steam that is there for gaming, specifically RPG FPS games like Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas. (Neither have native Linux versions for those who don't know.)
I recently upgraded the Windows desktop from an old ATI/AMD graphics card to a newer NVIDIA card due to wanting better Fallout performance. All my other desktops run Gentoo Linux and ATI/AMD cards, probably 66xx or 67xx chipsets.
The only thing stopping me ditching Windows completely is the fact that I have twice as many games in Windows Steam as opposed to Linux Steam, other than that I don't need Windows at all.
But if anyone can confirm if Windows Steam in WINE works well with NVIDIA cards then I may do an upgrade or two so I can ditch Windows completely. I tried it with ATI/AMD cards and had very little success, especially when it came to game performance. But I also have done very little in recent years on NVIDIA cards and WINE gaming.... so any hints here gratefully received!
Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
It's impossible to install AMD Catalyst on a production Linux machine. Because it's crashing and taking the whole system with it.
In short: few people. It is worth to spend resources catering to those? Hmm... no. That may change with the advent of the steam machines... but again it may not. I'm certainly not paying $999 for a crippled steam OS computer, and even if I do, why limit myself to a rather poor platform? There is no benefit to me whatsoever, so my first step would be to install windows and run ALL my games instead of the few ported.
Besides, lots of those relatively few people who don't like windows do it for philosophical rather than technical reasons (open, free software), and I seriously doubt that the most evangelist amongst them will be willing to pay for anything at all, so again: why cater to them?
when there was a ATI rage128 X11 driver written by enthusiast and Linux people it was basically the BEST
then nvidia saw the marketing and CAD market decided to ship a direct port of their windows driver with all the horrible spec breaking kludges that made it fast...
AMD now released a good driver that doesn't have too many kludges and sticks fairly well to the spec but its slow... they dont want to reveal all their breaking of the spec and kludges that they do on windows...
basically we could have a driver that was fast but it wont be a good (without fudging colours and resolutions etc)
AMD need to look at it like a marketing experience and invest in the software drivers for a couple of years... hey they could blow nvidia out of the water in about 6 months if they had the right team and just went for it...
regards
John Jones
euro fag detected
I once read an article on a study that found that people will accept lower quality if it meets their needs. The study was in reference to watching web video, where the quality was not as much of an issue as long as you could see the video. The same theory applies to MP3 files. As long as AMD produces a stable driver that gives adequate performance, people will use them for gaming. You may not have the greatest image, but many people turn down the quality settings to get better frame rates anyway.
You also have to consider that much of the game industry develops for nVidia, and barely supports AMD. How many of the classic games, like Unreal Tournament 2003, started the game with the nVidia logo prominently? Many games are "optimized" for nVidia cards to begin with.
Nice troll. But inaccurate on both counts:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...
I could be in any part of the green area. Try again.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
I mostly play games on emulators nowadays, and they run fine on Linux.
Why do you think people want games on Linux? It's because rebooting to Windows is tedious.
Linux is the better desktop and working environment, so it is what you use when you don't play games. Having your desktop be an alt-tab away is convenient to quickly switch between gaming and other things.
Now why isn't the demand for games on Linux higher? Because most people who use Linux are professionals, and they don't spend that much of their time on the computer playing games, so when they need to, suffering the reboot is ok.
If you're serious about playing games, you run Windows... or you should... far fewer headaches and just a better overall experience...
My PS4 would like to have a word with you about that "should run Windows" bit.
What is crippled about SteamOS? It's just vanilla Debian underneath, a Real OS if there ever was one. You could even dual boot Windows if you feel so inclined. Nobody is stopping you. Not that Microsoft isn't known to lock OS features behind pay gates. Or neuter functionality to suit business partners. Or withhold major licences to encourage console sales. No, Microsoft would never cripple their OS!
With the Catalyst driver, that has historically been the objective. Forget about performance.
It's really not that bad and yes I spent a couple of hours playing BS:I yesterday on my core i7 nVidia 660 Ti gaming system with all settings set to Ultra. My AMD system is a Kaveri APU based system and lo and behold, the only game that requires very low settings is BS:I. As I understand it, BS:I and the other game he mentioned are using some form of emulation, similar to WINE for the game to play, this is true of the Witcher and will probably become more and more common.
So, ONE of my steam games plays better on nVidia than AMD, admitedly, I only have 24 Linux/SteamOS games but I tend to stick with the high profile shooters but one game plays bad and Michael L. makes a big stink. When my Kaveri came out, all the comparisons were against the top of the line i7 and i5 processors and it looked like crap. Using a car analogy, a Camry with a V6 compared to a Hellcat Challenger will look pretty slow but for all other purposes the Camry will have more than enough acceleration to satisfy the average driver.
Hell I'm just happy the games are coming to Linux, whether the run perfectly or not, I'd rather play on Linux in low settings than Windows in high.
But who games on Linux?
Me, for one.
but why would anyone do so?
1. Because I find the windows user interace utterly abhorrent. Like really really horribly terribly godawful. It makes me want to sacrifice kittens to dark gods.
2. Because I have better things to do with my disk space than waste an entire partition on what is essentially a launcher for games.
2a. Because even if I didn't have better things to do with my disk space than have an entire partition just for games, I would find managing said partition very annoying - I'd be constantly resizing it so that I could fit more games, or maybe even buying an entire disk just for games.
3. Because I find rebooting just to play a game very inconvenient, so much so that when I did have a windows partition for games, I rarely ever bothered playing games.
4. Did I mention that I find the windows user interface to be completely, utterly, totally terribly horrible in every respect? I mean it's really, really awful. Just try using something with a semi-decent, fast, configurable user interface (xfce, for example) for 10 years and then going back to that slow, unconfigurable throwback of a UI... you'll start to understand why people take high-powered rifles up to clock towers. Not to mention the hideously slow start up times and the times it just sits there doing god-knows-what while you're sitting there wondering WTF. And of course there's no way to actually find out what it's doing, because system monitor reports that it's using zero percent of its CPU while the disk spins away crazily and the system is completely unresponsive.
5. Windows doesn't support my gamepad anymore - the latest drivers released by the manufacturer were for windows XP. It "just works" in every linux game I've ever tried (except for the silly ones that only support an xbox controller).
6. Windows is slow.
7. Windows is huge and bloated.
8. Windows costs money.
I hope this has been an enlightening experience. :)
If you're serious about playing games, you run Windows... or you should... far fewer headaches and just a better overall experience...
Some people like to play games but aren't "serious about games".
Some people find windows to be a far, far, far worse experience with far far more headaches. To such an extent that if a game is only available for windows then playing it is not worth the headache. I'd really like to play the newer GTA games - But do I want to play them enough to endure installing windows? No way. I'll just find other interesting games to play.
Trying to get stuff to run where it wasn't meant to is just a PITA...
Oh, I know! The PITA involved in getting Bioshock Infinite running was just terrible! it was such rigmarole! First, I had to start Steam, then I had to click 'Install', then I had to actually wait while it downloaded (sheesh!), then I had to click "Play", then "New Game". It was such a chore! And don't even get me started on the horror of transferring my Half-Life savegames from windows to Linux - I had to wait until it stopped saying "syncing steam cloud" - such a headache!
I have over 2,000 games on Steam
Not to be judgemental, but it sounds to me like you're wasting your life.
what exactly is the point?
Not installing windows.
Every filling station here stocks diesel. Is it a better technology? Maybe... It is really expensive to fix when it breaks.
Since shooting holes in automotive analogies is a hobby, I should point out here that the modern TGDI engines (turbocharged gasoline direct injection) have all the same parts as a diesel, and as such they cost just as much to maintain. However, they also give similar efficiency (they'll continue to improve for some time yet) while not requiring such a heavy engine block*. These engines tend to be slightly less high-revving, and turbocharging lends itself to producing mid-range power, so the benefits of diesels are largely being eliminated — especially since many of them have problems running over 10-20% biodiesel.
* Subaru has a diesel with opposed cylinders and a lightweight block, but they're fairly anemic so far.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
or perhaps techheads in general like to have their "special stuff".
When Windows 8 came out, I had 3 very nontechnical friends who found themselves "upgraded" to an interface which was completely foreign and confusing to them. They called me and said that their computers had "gone weird" on them. My solution was to put an xubuntu livecd into their drives and let them play with it for a bit. All 3 of them said that they preferred it because it "made more sense" and was "more like it used to be", all 3 agreed that I should wipe the windows partition and install xubuntu. All 3 are still using it.
(of which I am one)
LOL. A gamer is not a "techhead".
buy anything and it will work on Windows. Linux? I'd have to check first
Go buy a Packard Bell FastMedia Remote control and then come talk to me. You'll find it's simply impossible to use in anything newer than Windows me due to the WinNT line not allowing direct access to serial ports. Mine still works brilliantly in linux.
I literally can't remember the last time I plugged something into a linux machine and it didn't just work. It might have been around 2007, but I suspect it was more like 2003. And I get my hands on weird and wonderfully exotic hardware every now and then.
What does Linux in 2015 do that Windows does not?
Just a couple off the top of my head:
1. Shows you what it's doing when it's busy (assuming you bother to ask)
2. Mounts mounting volumes in virtually every filesystem ever invented
3. Supports loopback mounting (i.e mount an iso [or any disk image] without thirdparty software)
4. Supports more than 25 attached disks.
5. Boots into a live, usable environment from a USB stick or DVD
6. Has a themeable, customisable interface
7. Supports MUCH MUCH more hardware
8. Runs on ARM devices
9. Runs on a Space Station
10. Serves up most of the web's traffic
11. Provides virtually all of the world's supercomputing
12. Has tens of thousands of high-quality applications available for free and about 3 clicks away from being installed
13. Provides free, 1-click updates
14. Doesn't have any arbitrary limitations imposed based on how much you spent on it.
15. Doesn't need a virus scanner
16. Doesn't suck ass
Have you ever even used Linux? If you tried Red Hat 5.0 back in 1998, it's probably time you took another look. In 2015, it's superior to windows in every respect except one: available proprietary software. And that's changing.
Good answer!
I own some old hardware and my pastime is to make them work with new software, because of the progress made and because vulnerabilities are closed/solved. So, please, nobody suggests: "Hey, just install Ubuntu 8.04, man!", okay?
I got two old Geforce cards which now work quite well thanks to the Nouveau guys. Though I didn't test them with games, they're quite fast for day-to-day use and both have OpenGL -- though one can use OpenGL 2.0 with the Nvidia proprietary driver and only OpenGL 1.2 with the Nouveau driver.
But one day, Nvidia will stop providing their closed driver. On this day, I will make a no-no head gesture, probably say "Tsk!" and keep on using the great free software provided by Nouveau. Even if I somehow do not use the computer with that card, I'll have given my contribution to make a poor fellow know that such hardware can be used -- because there is a solution provided by those great souls in the Nouveau team (bless' be them!).
Regarding AMD/ATI cards, I don't have one, but I've read they were trying to use free software components and making things less closed. Just like in the Nvidia case, it is important to know whether I'll be impossible to upgrade my distro because there's no open source driver.
I would choose maintainability over performance in an instant.
How much are Microsoft paying you to post on slashdot?
Clearly if it ran windows if would be a PS5.
Steam DRM. If Valve ever goes under or a rights holder rescinds Valve's rights to distribute a game or Valve simply decides they don't want to support a game any more, then you're SOL. Steam and Valve are the epitome of anti-open, anti-free, anti-choice and anti-Linux.
With gog.com, I don't need a worthless, resource hoarding, spyware client to be installed, constantly running and phoning home. I just pay, download through my browser and play. I can also make all of the backups I want, knowing that I will always have the ability to play my games in the future, regardless of what happens to gog.com or rights holders.
Is like running windoze. It's buggy, bloated, and slow. Every time I've tried it, I removed it and put the open source driver back because the open source is always faster and has less problems. It's like trying to run winblows on Linux, the apples and oranges don't breed well.
Not to take the wind out of your sails, but:
3: Supported in Windows since at least 8. ISO and VHDI images only, but still.
5: Windows-to-Go.
8: Windows 8 onwards has ARM versions, with Windows 10 attempting to unify mobile devices as well.
12: Windows app store. 'Quality' is subjective, admittedly, but the provision is made.
13: Microsoft update & Windows App Store.
15: If properly configured, neither does Windows. Security is not that simple.
16: That's an opinion, not a function.
Linux can be adapted to serve a vast array of niches which makes either it or BSD the only choice for a lot of applications, but it demands a far higher degree of user skill and knowledge to use. That could equip them better to deal with any quirks, flaws, and problems they later encounter, but dismissing the majority that can't get over that hurdle as 'Lusers' is common to Linux as well.
This has not been my experience, though that is anecdotal. Perhaps because people tend to drive TGDI vehicles harder than diesels. In any case, do you have a reference for this?
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Linux is the better desktop and working environment
It is? Citation?
I fully get that market share doesn't always call out the better product, sometimes inferior products succeed while the better one fails... but Windows more or less owns the desktop market. Even OS X has multiple times more market share than Linux does.
---
I keep hearing people say "Linux is better", but I don't see any specific reasons. The impression I get is that "Linux is better because it isn't Windows". Frankly, that is not a reason, it is an opinion, which is fine, but it is like saying Chocolate Ice Cream is better than Vanilla Ice Cream.
Linux is not for games, Apple products are overpriced, and Windows OSes get harder to use. Read all about it!
Some people like to play games but aren't "serious about games".
Yes, and that is fine, if you just want to pick from the handful of games with proper Linux ports, I'm sure they work well enough...
But if you are, then Windows it is...
Some people find windows to be a far, far, far worse experience with far far more headaches.
Again, everyone keeps saying this stuff without providing any examples. "Linux is better, Windows sucks".
Those aren't reasons, those are opinions and personal tastes. What exactly does Windows "suck at"?
Oh, I know! The PITA involved in getting Bioshock Infinite running was just terrible! it was such rigmarole!
The fanboy in you is showing... I said getting stuff to run where it wasn't meant to... Get GTA to run on Linux and get back to me... THAT wasn't meant to, BS:I clearly was...
Not to be judgemental, but it sounds to me like you're wasting your life.
I like supporting indie developers and I buy almost every Humble Bundle for charity reasons...
The majority of those games will never be played, but the collection does grow...
Not installing windows.
Got it, so it is an "Anything but Windows" mindset...
You know, "Windows Sucks" doesn't translate into "Linux is great". The 1.5% Linux desktop marketshare would seem to indicate that is a true statement.
I suppose my interest is to simply hear why Linux on the desktop is so great, but instead I keep hearing "It isn't Windows".
Why the hate on Windows?
When Windows 8 came out, I had 3 very nontechnical friends who found themselves "upgraded" to an interface which was completely foreign and confusing to them. They called me and said that their computers had "gone weird" on them. My solution was to put an xubuntu livecd into their drives and let them play with it for a bit. All 3 of them said that they preferred it because it "made more sense" and was "more like it used to be", all 3 agreed that I should wipe the windows partition and install xubuntu. All 3 are still using it.
Many people use their computer as nothing more than an Internet and e-mail machine, and in that respect, it largely doesn't matter what OS they run.
Many of these people are moving to tablets as they discover they don't really want or need a computer.
Just a couple off the top of my head:
1. Shows you what it's doing when it's busy (assuming you bother to ask)
2. Mounts mounting volumes in virtually every filesystem ever invented
3. Supports loopback mounting (i.e mount an iso [or any disk image] without thirdparty software)
4. Supports more than 25 attached disks.
5. Boots into a live, usable environment from a USB stick or DVD
6. Has a themeable, customisable interface
7. Supports MUCH MUCH more hardware
8. Runs on ARM devices
9. Runs on a Space Station
10. Serves up most of the web's traffic
11. Provides virtually all of the world's supercomputing
12. Has tens of thousands of high-quality applications available for free and about 3 clicks away from being installed
13. Provides free, 1-click updates
14. Doesn't have any arbitrary limitations imposed based on how much you spent on it.
15. Doesn't need a virus scanner
16. Doesn't suck ass
Have you ever even used Linux? If you tried Red Hat 5.0 back in 1998, it's probably time you took another look. In 2015, it's superior to windows in every respect except one: available proprietary software. And that's changing.
Lord... that is a nerd's wet dream to be sure... 99% of the consumer market couldn't care less about that list... #16 betrays your feelings, I have found that most of the die hard Linux supports are really Windows haters who can't afford OS X.
Linux works fine, I am well aware of this, but working fine isn't enough... Get back to me when Adobe Photoshop, MS Office, TurboTax, Quickbooks, etc. have native Linux versions.
People do not buy computers and run OSes for their own sake, they do it to run their programs and actually do stuff.
Windows does this, Linux does not. GIMP and OpenOffice are not substitutes for Photoshop and MS Office, no matter how much you want them to be.
https://thefearlesspenguin.wor...
^ That is a perfect example of why Linux is a PITA for the average consumer and Windows is not.
I think you're confusing cause and effect, people ask why you don't use Windows and the answer is because you want to use something other than Windows.
I bring up that point for the simple reason that I do not believe that most people actually care what OS is on their computer.
People just want to know that it works and that it runs the programs they want to run.
On my work machine, I have many programs installed that have no Linux version. It would be a PITA to try and change. I simply must have MS Office, Acrobat (full version, not reader), Photoshop, Quickbooks, etc.
Try doing your taxes on Linux. It can be done, but it is again a PITA.
https://thefearlesspenguin.wor...
^ Yes, the web based versions can be "made to work", but that is a lot of hassle for your average consumer. Why not just run Windows and then it all just works?
---
TL;DR - The challenge for Linux is not technical, it has been "good enough" for a long time now. The challenge is a lack of a reason for Joe Consumer to run it or care, programs that people want to run don't come in Linux versions, it doesn't have any marketing support, etc.
The "average person" also used Internet Explorer when it had 95% market share and was really slow at seeking alternatives. Because IE6 worked because sites had to work in IE6, the mainstream only follows once a significant portion of early adopters have led the way. Not that Linux has too many trendsetters, we're "experts" but soccer moms don't take car advice from race car drivers. They want to know what works for a soccer mom.
Changing web browsers is not remotely the same thing as changing OSes. :)
Google got a lot of people to move to Chrome simply due to offering free e-mail that didn't suck (see: Hotmail) and offering great search. Without those two, Chrome would be a foot note.
Netscape was the browser of choice, but frankly it stopped being great at version 3. 4 was bloated and slow, IE was fast.
---
The mistake in thinking that the same thing will happen to Linux is that when you install Linux, your current programs no longer run. When you put a new web browser on your computer, your old one still works, your current programs still work.
This idea that Linux is a growing trend has been talked about for 20 years. Linux has about the same market share it had 10 years ago, which is to say almost none. The "Year of the Linux Desktop" has been just around the corner for a long time now.
Frankly, I don't think it is ever coming. The reasons are not technical, Linux is just fine in that dept. But being technically good isn't enough of a reason.
Market share is a battle won one step at the time. Either you double 1% to 2% and get a few more to care or you halve to 0.5% and a few less care. That the 90%+ didn't care and still don't care is something that might change if you get the pebble rolling into a landslide, but if the pebble's stuck you're stuck. It's not about making Linux a killer gaming platform, it's about making gaming not be a Linux-killer. If that makes it viable for another 1%, you're making progress.
With respect, I've heard that before... :) Back around 2001, the "Year of the Linux Desktop" was just around the corner.
Here we are, 14 years later...
The reasons Linux never took off on the desktop have nothing to do with technical issues, they are marketing and business issues.
Companies like Dell have tried selling computers with Linux on them, they stopped because it was more trouble than it was worth, the return rate on them was several times higher due to customers expecting to be able to run all their software on them.
Windows has such an installed base at this point, it would be very hard for anything to replace it. That installed base doesn't carry over into other markets which is why Windows Phone has gone nowhere.
---
At the end of the day, perhaps the biggest problem Linux has is that even if somehow magically every game on Steam had a perfect Linux version, if MS was somehow convinced to write MS Office for Linux, etc... I STILL don't see a reason to switch.
Maybe if Windows 10 was going to cost $100 per machine to upgrade, then sure, I'd take a look. Win 10 is free, so I sure as heck don't care.
Being different isn't a reason to change, it has to offer me something I don't currently have. I skipped Vista because it was a mess at launch and XP worked fine. I moved to Windows 7 because it was time for a 64-bit OS and it had all the kinks worked out of it. I skipped 8 because it had the same problems as Vista, but frankly 8.1 fixed most of those and I run in on several machines. The only reason my main desktop doesn't run it is 10 is so close, I don't want to make that change twice, it is a waste of my time.
---
TL;DR - So why should I go to Linux? What does it run that Windows doesn't? What will it do for me on my small 6 computer home network that Windows doesn't?
My PS4 would like to have a word with you about that "should run Windows" bit.
On the desktop, and you know it...
People don't care what OS their computers run. PS4 runs whatever it has to run to play games. Their desktop computer runs Windows because that is what runs Office, TurboTax, games, etc.
Linux largely does not. And the bigger issue? Linux doesn't have anything that ONLY runs on Linux.
If Half Life 3 came out and ONLY ran on Linux, you might get a few more people interested, but that would be a pretty stupid move on Valve's part, IMHO, from a sales point of view.
I'm in the same position with my 7-year-old ThinkPad T61p (Quadro FX570M). To tie this back into drivers and complaining about nVidia's recent driver screwups, the latest drivers that work with the 8600GT actually accept the Quadro as a valid card and outperform the latest Quadro drivers. (Thank god I figured that out, I was getting sick of 60% fps drops every twenty seconds regardless of what I was playing.)
It's actually okay if 99% of consumers don't care. They are okay with the most basic computing devices. It's cool if you don't think that Linux's features are worthwhile too, but the thing is, if you're already a programmer then having complete control, scripting access, and the source code to your OS is quite useful. Clearly Windows does some things that Linux does not, but that does not mean that each is not useful in its own sphere.
Microsoft pretty much does suck though. Windows as an OS is maybe not quite as good as its software ecosystem, although it does have certain advantages. Microsoft managed to completely overhaul its sound and color rendering systems for Vista without any problems, whereas the contemporaneous roll-out of Pulseaudio is shall we say not remembered fondly. Now if they'd stop fucking up their UI they might end up with a half-decent system.
I think proponents of both systems should be fairer to the other camp. Criticism should not involve denigrating the other party. And especially in this particular rivalry, I feel like the days of hostility should be behind us. I don't think the systems are converging per se, but I think we've passed the point where either party is out to destroy the other, and developers of both systems are learning from each other.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
... was how it devolved completely from AMD vs nVidia to the eternal, never-ending, self-righteous Windows vs Linux snarkfest.
It is from a technical point of view.
Marketing is something else entirely.
On the desktop, and you know it...
People don't care what OS their computers run.
True.
PS4 runs whatever it has to run to play games.
BSD
Their desktop computer runs Windows because that is what runs Office, TurboTax, games, etc.
Who needs Windows to run a word processor? Who needs Windows to run TurboTax when the preparation companies own web based products work just fine in almost any web browser? Who needs Windows for games when there's a BSD running PS4?
I don't need Windows:
[CronoCloud@ ~]$ uname -a
Linux 3.19.1-201.fc21.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Mar 18 04:29:24 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[CronoCloud@ ~]$ cat
Fedora release 21 (Twenty One)
Who needs Windows to run a word processor? Who needs Windows to run TurboTax when the preparation companies own web based products work just fine in almost any web browser? Who needs Windows for games when there's a BSD running PS4?
TurboTax via the web does work, but I still use the software program for various reasons. If you have a complex return (my return last year was 64 pages long), having it locally is easier to deal with. For simple returns, sure, use the web.
That being said, give it a try on Linux, it doesn't work without tricking it, since it is looking for a Windows or Mac based computer.
As for a word processor, not just any will do, it has to be MS Word. That is what the business world uses, if you do anything more than type simple notes, it needs to be in Word. Google Docs is nice, OpenOffice is nice. I've used both, neither compare to Word.
I don't need Windows
No, you don't, but you don't need a computer either. :)
You also don't need Linux, OS X would be just fine as well.
Fair enough, but neither of those is absolute when the term "better" is used.
Linux does have some technical things that it does better than Windows, but that doesn't make it a better OS.
This has not been my experience, though that is anecdotal. Perhaps because people tend to drive TGDI vehicles harder than diesels. In any case, do you have a reference for this?
What do you mean, reference? Look at the mileage figures, since the last revamp they're almost good for something. The really small engines (2 liter and below) are returning exceptional mileage for their maximum output.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The zealots/extremists are not correct, essentially or otherwise. Their zealotry is a problem in and of itself.
I ought to love Linux. Many attributes this world has line up with my experience, training and world view. I dabble in it and follow the development progress online.
However the zealots just can't help themselves. They sell an ideology even when it is entirely inappropriate to do so, or when they've made their point, or the audience does not and will not care. In order for Linux to dominate the world the ideology needs to be number 11 on the list of Top 10 attributes. Also the continual hating on Microsoft is just plain ugly. When you spend that much time and effort on a negative message there are consequences.
Linux is great when you demonstrate it's power and utility. A good OS is good on it's own merits. When you have to trash talk the competitors, or blather on endlessly about purity, freedom and openness, you dilute the most important message, which is to convince people to try the product. You wind up taking liberties with the attention span and interests of the audience.
So the majority of your Steam collection comes from Humble Bundles? Well, I have good news for you, then. The majority of Humble Bundles have Linux support! Certainly the majority of indie games in Humble Bundle. Check it out. You may be pleasantly surprised.
As for Windows, I don't mind it too much. It has its place. I use Linux as my home and work interface, because it suits the way I like to work. I use the Enlightenment window manager, as it is extremely customisable, allowing me to tweak it to exactly how I like. Microsoft generally have a different mind set. They want you to work the way they deem the "right" way. So in using Windows, I have to adapt my workflow to the Microsoft mindset, rather than be able to adapt my environment to my mindset. That's probably a good thing for most computer users, but it annoys me.
That, and when things go wrong, Windows can be a pain. It tends to want to hide details, whereas Linux is usually excellent in supplying all sorts of details on an issue. I manage both Windows and Linux servers, and from my experience, troubleshooting is much easier in the Linux environment. When both systems work, they both work well. When problems hit, I'd rather be on a Linux system.
Actually, if it ran windows, it would be a PSVista .
Again, everyone keeps saying this stuff without providing any examples. "Linux is better, Windows sucks".
Those aren't reasons, those are opinions and personal tastes.
And you saying that windows is good isn't an opinion or a personal taste?
Personally, my opinion and personal taste is for an interface that is fast and configurable and doesn't hide useful information in the name of being "user friendly". IMHO when an interface makes the assumption that I'm a moron and that I don't want to see what it is doing with my processor is a bad interface. A concrete example of this is the amount of information provided by the windows task manager vs something like top.
Another example, windows makes the assumption that I'm too stupid to know about the maximise button and helpfully maximises the window when I drag it to the top of the screen. Because there's no way I could possibly want a small window at the top of the screen. This infuriates me constantly (well, not constantly, "on the rare occasions I'm forced to do something on a windows machine").
I adore the configurability of thunar/xfce's context menus - I have a bunch of custom actions available on different types of files, such as a "Play ISO as DVD" option which appears for iso files. All added via thunar's neat 'configure custom actions' GUI, no messing about with the registry or playing with arcane configuration files or hoping that the coder who wrote my DVD playing software chose to create an association for iso files.
Then there's the godawful command line interface in windows. It lacks so many features it's not even funny. Tabs - what are they? Hell, you can't even press the 'up' key to get access to commands from your previous session (i.e across reboots).
Or we could talk about configuring a webserver. That's a particularly fun one. For me, setting up an enterprise-grade web server requires me to type something like 'apt-get install apache2', then spending about 1 minute editing configuration to enable the site I want. For you, it involves purchasing the latest version of windows server, ensuring that you spent enough to have not run up against the arbitrary restrictions imposed on you ('number of simultaneous connections/users') and spending an hour and a half clicking through "wizards" which assume that you're too stupid to know what a webserver is (which is an interesting assumption, given that you've chosen to set up an enterprise-grade webserver). It's a similar situation for pretty much any other server software: "apt-get install postgresql" vs "purchase MSSQL, install MSSQL, configure MSSQL for an hour". Hell, the last time I used MSSQL it didn't even allow remote connections by default - "for security". Because apparently the idea of allowing remote connections except from the super user never occurred to anybody at microsoft.
I reiterate that these are all just off the top of my head - I haven't actually sat down and tried to create an exhaustive list, or anything. These are just a couple of big ones which immediately leap to mind. In reality the reasons Linux is better are the ten thousand little things that I just don't even notice anymore until they're not available on some other platform, when I start screaming.
The fanboy in you is showing
chortle.. Pot, kettle!
I said getting stuff to run where it wasn't meant to... Get GTA to run on Linux and get back to me... THAT wasn't meant to, BS:I clearly was...
So, by implication, since windows is so much better, it's easy to run systemd on windows then?
I actually have GTA3 running in Linux quite well, thank you very much. Also San Andreas and Vice City via my PS2 emulator - how does GTA3 run on the latest version of windows? Will it even install? I'd be surprised.
I also have all the SCUMM games, some of which run better than in their native environment (e.g Grim Fandango has mouse support). Not to mention my tens of
The majority of those games will never be played
Then why does it matter what operating systems they support?
Got it, so it is an "Anything but Windows" mindset...
No, actually. I chose Linux over both BSD and Mac OS because I prefer it. I might consider the latest AmigaOS if it didn't require exotic and expensive hardware, but that's because I'm an AmigaOS fanboy - I don't know how practical it would be in real life, and I suspect I'd need linux to get things done.
"Windows Sucks" doesn't translate into "Linux is great"
That's true, but you have things backwards again - "Linux is great" does translate to "Windows sucks".
I've used Linux exclusively for 10+ years, and I've come to rely on those 10,000 little things that make it great. And when those things are not available on windows, I scream in frustration.
The 1.5% Linux desktop marketshare would seem to indicate that is a true statement.
Or it could indicate that 98.5% of people are lazy, ignorant, or both.
my interest is to simply hear why Linux on the desktop is so great
See my other post, where I list a bunch of examples off the top of my head. There are many, many more.
instead I keep hearing "It isn't Windows".
I don't think you're really listening.
Why the hate on Windows?
There are many reasons, but the main one is probably because I find the interface really awful.
99% of the consumer market couldn't care less about that list
You didn't specify things that 99% of people care about. Personally I couldn't care less what 99% of people want.
I have found that most of the die hard Linux supports are really Windows haters who can't afford OS X.
I think most of those people are using OS X at this point, though a couple of people I know use Linux on Mac hardware.
I think OS X is even worse than windows - that's a truly terrible UI and it makes the windows UI look almost good by comparison.
Get back to me when Adobe Photoshop, MS Office, TurboTax, Quickbooks, etc. have native Linux versions.
I actually prefer gimp over photoshop, because I'm used to it.
I actually prefer openoffice over MS Office, because I'm used to it and it has more features.
The other 2? Fair enough. But I don't use them or have any need to. If I did, I'd probably fire up wine or a VM (which I could snapshot and easily backup and do a bunch more than I could with a native windows install).
People do not buy computers and run OSes for their own sake, they do it to run their programs and actually do stuff. Windows does this, Linux does not.
Want an IDE?
On windows: go download Visual Studio express. Make sure you virus scan the exe. Run the installer. Click next 50 times while you go through the install wizard. Realise that the free version has no features. Go to microsoft.com and whip out your credit card. Download a full version. Make sure you virus scan the exe. Repeat the 'click next 50 times' rigmarole.
On linux: Open up the software centre, type 'eclipse' (or browse through the 'programming' category until you find one), click 'install', run eclipse. Don't like eclipse? try one of the other 50 IDEs via an almost identical process.
Want pretty much anything else? The process is much the same. I think you need to look at e.g ubuntu's software centre - it wasn't available in redhat 6, so you've probably missed it. You'll fall in love.
GIMP and OpenOffice are not substitutes for Photoshop and MS Office, no matter how much you want them to be.
You've obviously not used openoffice in the last 5+ years. And I've never found anything I couldn't do in gimp, though I will concede that I don't do image stuff all that often.
I'm not actually interested in what "people" buy computers for, I'm interested in what I want to do. No "average person" has ever laid a finger on any of my computers, and if they did they'd lose the finger. I'm not actually interested in what the market share is except insomuch as the higher the market share the more chance that there will be more awesome native proprietary software available, e.g games and your tax software. But there are other ways to encourage this too, which I actively pursue - things like paying way more than the average for humble bundles where all the games support linux, emailling people who do linux ports to say "You're awesome, I just bought it because you ported", and emailling people who you want to do ports and saying "If you port, I'll buy". If "people" want to use windows, then fine, that actually suits me perfectly because I get to say "oh, it's windows, I'm not helping you with that, go pay someone or sort it out yourself".
Many people use their computer as nothing more than an Internet and e-mail machine, and in that respect, it largely doesn't matter what OS they run.
Wait, what? I thought windows did everything better?!?
Many of these people are moving to linux-based tablets as they discover they don't really want or need a computer.
Fixed.
he said "serious" everyone knows console gamers are only one step above the mobile phone pond scum.
And you saying that windows is good isn't an opinion or a personal taste?
No, that isn't what I said or what other people are saying.
"Windows is better than Linux for the desktop for most people."
^ That is what I'm saying.
Why? It runs the programs that most people want to run, Linux does not.
It is not about technical abilities, it is about "does it run my software".
That is really what people care about. Linux is indeed "good" from a technical point of view. Linux is indeed "good" from a server point of view. Linux is NOT "good" for the average consumer's desktop computer.
Personally, my opinion and personal taste is for an interface that is fast and configurable and doesn't hide useful information in the name of being "user friendly". IMHO when an interface makes the assumption that I'm a moron and that I don't want to see what it is doing with my processor is a bad interface. A concrete example of this is the amount of information provided by the windows task manager vs something like top.
Another example, windows makes the assumption that I'm too stupid to know about the maximise button and helpfully maximises the window when I drag it to the top of the screen. Because there's no way I could possibly want a small window at the top of the screen. This infuriates me constantly (well, not constantly, "on the rare occasions I'm forced to do something on a windows machine").
I adore the configurability of thunar/xfce's context menus - I have a bunch of custom actions available on different types of files, such as a "Play ISO as DVD" option which appears for iso files. All added via thunar's neat 'configure custom actions' GUI, no messing about with the registry or playing with arcane configuration files or hoping that the coder who wrote my DVD playing software chose to create an association for iso files.
Then there's the godawful command line interface in windows. It lacks so many features it's not even funny. Tabs - what are they? Hell, you can't even press the 'up' key to get access to commands from your previous session (i.e across reboots).
Or we could talk about configuring a webserver. That's a particularly fun one. For me, setting up an enterprise-grade web server requires me to type something like 'apt-get install apache2', then spending about 1 minute editing configuration to enable the site I want. For you, it involves purchasing the latest version of windows server, ensuring that you spent enough to have not run up against the arbitrary restrictions imposed on you ('number of simultaneous connections/users') and spending an hour and a half clicking through "wizards" which assume that you're too stupid to know what a webserver is (which is an interesting assumption, given that you've chosen to set up an enterprise-grade webserver). It's a similar situation for pretty much any other server software: "apt-get install postgresql" vs "purchase MSSQL, install MSSQL, configure MSSQL for an hour". Hell, the last time I used MSSQL it didn't even allow remote connections by default - "for security". Because apparently the idea of allowing remote connections except from the super user never occurred to anybody at microsoft.
I reiterate that these are all just off the top of my head - I haven't actually sat down and tried to create an exhaustive list, or anything. These are just a couple of big ones which immediately leap to mind. In reality the reasons Linux is better are the ten thousand little things that I just don't even notice anymore until they're not available on some other platform, when I start screaming.
None of those are reasons Linux is better on the desktop for the average consumer.
Linux has less than 2% desktop market share for a reason. That doesn't mean YOU can't like and use Linux, but don't confuse a techie's likes with the mass population.
If you like Linux, go ahead. Just don't have any delusions of grandeur that "The Year of the Linux Desktop" is near, because it isn't.
I've used Linux exclusively for 10+ years, and I've come to rely on those 10,000 little things that make it great. And when those things are not available on windows, I scream in frustration.
Fair enough, but then frankly you don't really count.
Why? Because you've used it for 10 years and in case you haven't noticed, it's usage on the desktop has gone exactly nowhere.
I have no doubt there will continue to be people like you, 20 years from now. Nothing wrong with that, some people like to tinker with such things. But you'll always be in the vast minority.
I'm not actually interested in what "people" buy computers for, I'm interested in what I want to do.
Good for you, but that isn't what is being discussed.
The original point is that Linux has "growing share" or "growing gaming share" or "more interest in Linux gaming", etc.
Which is a bunch of bantha dung.
By all means, use Linux, no crime in that. Just understand that you're using a very marginal (in terms of market share) desktop OS that will never be anything other than such.
No, they are Android tablets... but nice try...
(yes, yes, I understand the base under that, but no one cares and it isn't going to carry over in the desktop market)
I have a friend at AMD/Orlando who was assigned to look at this issue and here's his reply:
"Its funny you sent this, because this is literally exactly what I am .Slashdot ought to be more careful NOT to promote/disseminate corporate (i.e., nVidia) misinformation
working on. BioShock Infinite for Linux checks if you are using an AMD
card and uses a different rendering path. I am pretty sure this is
what is causing that to be slower than nvidia."
Wow, talk about shifting the goalposts. This started as a discussion of who would game on Linux, and why would they do so. I gave you a bunch of reasons, and rather than respond to them you decided to turn it into a "Linux on the desktop" debate, and what is best for "normal users" and "average people".
I'm not talking about average people, because I couldn't care less what they do on their computers, what operating system they run, or what software they use or what games they play. They can do whatever they want on their computers - they're their computers. The only reason I would like to see more Linux adoption is so that I see more native Linux software.
And there's not even very much software I want: a good, easy video editor, and FL studio (or a replacement for it) are the only 2 that spring to mind that aren't games. Games are the big one. And I'm prefectly happy to not play a game because there's no linux port - there is no game that I'm so interested in to make it worth the hassle of installing, much less using, windows.
One of the reasons there's not very much non-game nonfree software for linux is that they have a hard time competing with the huge library of free stuff which is available - why would I buy sound forge when I can just use audacity? There are only a few niches where there's any chance for a nonfree option to get a foothold. And in many of those cases (e.g your tax software), any linux user can just run it in a VM or using wine, which incidentally is a better desktop experience than using a native windows install, for reasons I've already related and you've already chosen to ignore.
I'm not here to debate what "average people" want or care about, or when the year of the linux desktop is coming, because I really truly don't care one whit. I don't care if you and 99.99999% of the ignorant masses like your terrible interfaces (which you've already admitted you don't, but you're apparently happy to be spoon-fed crap and praise the people who feed it to you). For me, the year of the linux desktop was 2001.
Another example, windows makes the assumption that I'm too stupid to know about the maximise button and helpfully maximises the window when I drag it to the top of the screen. Because there's no way I could possibly want a small window at the top of the screen.
I adore the configurability of thunar/xfce's context menus - I have a bunch of custom actions available on different types of files, such as a "Play ISO as DVD" option which appears for iso files. All added via thunar's neat 'configure custom actions' GUI, no messing about with the registry or playing with arcane configuration files or hoping that the coder who wrote my DVD playing software chose to create an association for iso files.
None of those are reasons Linux is better on the desktop for the average consumer.
Wow, you're not paying attention at all. See my reply above.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with gaming, or why I want to play games on Linux
it's usage on the desktop has gone exactly nowhere.
Bullshit.
The original point is that Linux has "growing share" or "growing gaming share" or "more interest in Linux gaming", etc.
Actually, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the original question was "why would anybody game on Linux?". And I've already addressed that elsewhere.
Which is a bunch of bantha dung.
Bullshit, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The advent of native Linux games will cause a reduction in the number of windows installs out there, which will change the figures. I know more than one person who has deleted the windows partition they used to use solely for gaming since the advent of steam for Linux. These people will not be buying any more windows licenses.
But I guess you're right, the '2%" figure probably won't change, because when these people buy machines without windows installed next time they upgrade it won't show up as a "purchased machine" on Microsoft's balance sheet, so the number they release and which you swallow and regurgitate will be exactly the same.
How much do Microsoft pay you for each post on here?
it isn't going to carry over in the desktop market
Then I guess you should tell all the netbook makers that they're wasting their time. And you should call google and tell them not to bother with chrome OS. Likewise firefox OS.
I work with SCADA systems that are Windows based, and I long for a Linux based SCADA system...