What Linux Distro do the Linux users of GH use?

[Leslieann]

I'm too anally retentive to dual boot. Two splash screens? Seeing different partitions / discs / home folders? It feels messy.

This about the 1000th time I've seen this post and I just don't get it...at all. Is this something spread around on Reddit or in gamer circles? It's not 2003 anymore. There are several free or cheap virtualization options out there. There is almost no reason to dual, triple, quad boot anything. Run a VM - done.

You also don't have to manually set partitions.

I completely disagree.
VM's work great for server environments or smaller programs you need but no alternative exists, but really, thats becoming more and more rare as Linux becomes more and more on par with Windows.

Here's the problem.
You use Linux for security and stability, it can do most of what Windows can do. Pretty much anything common will work just fine in Linux.
You use Windows for gaming and Cad. For games you need performance, and a VM is not going to run as well as a real OS for gaming, and while I can't speak for others, Solidworks 2016 will not run in a virtual environment.

[fohat.digs]

Back to basics: If somebody is coming to this thread for advice on how to break free from Micro$oft Windows .....

In my opinion Linux Mint/Cinnamon will give you the quickest transition with the easiest learning curve.

I dabbled with Ubuntu for years but it just got weirder and weirder.

[user 18]

I'm too anally retentive to dual boot. Two splash screens? Seeing different partitions / discs / home folders? It feels messy.

This about the 1000th time I've seen this post and I just don't get it...at all. Is this something spread around on Reddit or in gamer circles? It's not 2003 anymore. There are several free or cheap virtualization options out there. There is almost no reason to dual, triple, quad boot anything. Run a VM - done.

You also don't have to manually set partitions.

I completely disagree.
VM's work great for server environments or smaller programs you need but no alternative exists, but really, thats becoming more and more rare as Linux becomes more and more on par with Windows.

Here's the problem.
You use Linux for security and stability, it can do most of what Windows can do. Pretty much anything common will work just fine in Linux.
You use Windows for gaming and Cad. For games you need performance, and a VM is not going to run as well as a real OS for gaming, and while I can't speak for others, Solidworks 2016 will not run in a virtual environment.

Completely agree with this. I use linux practically all of the time now, and I only boot into Windows on my desktop to play games. On my other machines, all but one are linux-only, with the one Windows laptop for when I need to deal with Word documents and the appropriate formatting.

[iri]

I never boot Windows, AMA.

[SBJ]

Back to basics: If somebody is coming to this thread for advice on how to break free from Micro$oft Windows .....

In my opinion Linux Mint/Cinnamon will give you the quickest transition with the easiest learning curve.

I dabbled with Ubuntu for years but it just got weirder and weirder.

+1 for Linux Mint.
I'm currently running a big mix of ubuntu and Linux Mint + Ubuntu Mate for my slower machines.
I would recommend Mint for people wanting to get into Linux but are worried about taking the plunge.
If you've got an old, like really old, pc then Ubuntu Mate is really good.

[armatus]

Archlinux, bcs it makes you understand the basics of linux
(uses only text file configs)
it's rolling releases, so you don't need "distr upgrade" anymore

[smknjoe]

I'm too anally retentive to dual boot. Two splash screens? Seeing different partitions / discs / home folders? It feels messy.

This about the 1000th time I've seen this post and I just don't get it...at all. Is this something spread around on Reddit or in gamer circles? It's not 2003 anymore. There are several free or cheap virtualization options out there. There is almost no reason to dual, triple, quad boot anything. Run a VM - done.

You also don't have to manually set partitions.

I completely disagree.
VM's work great for server environments or smaller programs you need but no alternative exists, but really, thats becoming more and more rare as Linux becomes more and more on par with Windows.

Here's the problem.
You use Linux for security and stability, it can do most of what Windows can do. Pretty much anything common will work just fine in Linux.
You use Windows for gaming and Cad. For games you need performance, and a VM is not going to run as well as a real OS for gaming, and while I can't speak for others, Solidworks 2016 will not run in a virtual environment.

You are making my point...run Windows as your host and Linux as guest(s). Why would you NEED to run Linux natively if all you are doing is playing around with it or using it for some mundane server platform?

[rowdy]

Archlinux, bcs it makes you understand the basics of linux
(uses only text file configs)
it's rolling releases, so you don't need "distr upgrade" anymore

Welcome to Geekhack!

I used Arch for a little while at work, but found myself reading too much about the Arch way and worrying that some updates would break the system, than actually using it for work.

It's like Linux From Scratch (is that still around?) but more polished.

[TacticalCoder]

By the way did anyone try Nix (the "functional packager manager": functional as in deterministic, atomic upgrades, etc.) or NixOS?  I read some good things about it and I like their philosophy.

[user 18]

I'm too anally retentive to dual boot. Two splash screens? Seeing different partitions / discs / home folders? It feels messy.

This about the 1000th time I've seen this post and I just don't get it...at all. Is this something spread around on Reddit or in gamer circles? It's not 2003 anymore. There are several free or cheap virtualization options out there. There is almost no reason to dual, triple, quad boot anything. Run a VM - done.

You also don't have to manually set partitions.

I completely disagree.
VM's work great for server environments or smaller programs you need but no alternative exists, but really, thats becoming more and more rare as Linux becomes more and more on par with Windows.

Here's the problem.
You use Linux for security and stability, it can do most of what Windows can do. Pretty much anything common will work just fine in Linux.
You use Windows for gaming and Cad. For games you need performance, and a VM is not going to run as well as a real OS for gaming, and while I can't speak for others, Solidworks 2016 will not run in a virtual environment.

You are making my point...run Windows as your host and Linux as guest(s). Why would you NEED to run Linux natively if all you are doing is playing around with it or using it for some mundane server platform?

Windows has a lot of overhead, which isn't something I want in a VM host. If I was going back and forth all the time, I might consider a virtualized solution (and I did exactly that, when all I was doing with linux was playing around). But now I spend months without ever booting Windows on my desktop, and I see virtualization as just an unnecessary use of system resources and another potential point of failure. I quite frequently use enough RAM or CPU time that the overhead of a bulky host system like Windows would have a noticeable impact.

I agree that virtualization is better in most cases if you just have a single drive -- I have never had long-term success setting up dual boot between Windows and linux from a single physical drive. But I have two drives, and boot to grub on the drive with linux. Grub defaults to loading debian, but can switch me over to the Windows drive with one button. It's a very simple system, and it gives me everything I need to do what I need to do, whether it's work or just messing around online.

Beyond all that, for those who are more security-minded than myself, I'd assume that using Windows as a host defeats many of the security benefits of using linux, as all your data passes through the Windows environment at some point.

[SBJ]

Archlinux, bcs it makes you understand the basics of linux
(uses only text file configs)
it's rolling releases, so you don't need "distr upgrade" anymore

Welcome to GeekHack!
Arch is good if you have decent Linux knowledge beforehand. I wouldn't recommend it to someone just learning linux.

[sean]

Archlinux, bcs it makes you understand the basics of linux
(uses only text file configs)
it's rolling releases, so you don't need "distr upgrade" anymore

Welcome to Geekhack!

I used Arch for a little while at work, but found myself reading too much about the Arch way and worrying that some updates would break the system, than actually using it for work.

It's like Linux From Scratch (is that still around?) but more polished.

I don't know how long ago you used it, but after 2012 Arch stabilized (coincidentally after they went to systemd and purged their ncurses installer). These days it's really stable considering it's a bleeding edge rolling release distro.

[smknjoe]

I'm too anally retentive to dual boot. Two splash screens? Seeing different partitions / discs / home folders? It feels messy.

This about the 1000th time I've seen this post and I just don't get it...at all. Is this something spread around on Reddit or in gamer circles? It's not 2003 anymore. There are several free or cheap virtualization options out there. There is almost no reason to dual, triple, quad boot anything. Run a VM - done.

You also don't have to manually set partitions.

I completely disagree.
VM's work great for server environments or smaller programs you need but no alternative exists, but really, thats becoming more and more rare as Linux becomes more and more on par with Windows.

Here's the problem.
You use Linux for security and stability, it can do most of what Windows can do. Pretty much anything common will work just fine in Linux.
You use Windows for gaming and Cad. For games you need performance, and a VM is not going to run as well as a real OS for gaming, and while I can't speak for others, Solidworks 2016 will not run in a virtual environment.

You are making my point...run Windows as your host and Linux as guest(s). Why would you NEED to run Linux natively if all you are doing is playing around with it or using it for some mundane server platform?

Windows has a lot of overhead, which isn't something I want in a VM host. If I was going back and forth all the time, I might consider a virtualized solution (and I did exactly that, when all I was doing with linux was playing around). But now I spend months without ever booting Windows on my desktop, and I see virtualization as just an unnecessary use of system resources and another potential point of failure. I quite frequently use enough RAM or CPU time that the overhead of a bulky host system like Windows would have a noticeable impact.

I agree that virtualization is better in most cases if you just have a single drive -- I have never had long-term success setting up dual boot between Windows and linux from a single physical drive. But I have two drives, and boot to grub on the drive with linux. Grub defaults to loading debian, but can switch me over to the Windows drive with one button. It's a very simple system, and it gives me everything I need to do what I need to do, whether it's work or just messing around online.

Beyond all that, for those who are more security-minded than myself, I'd assume that using Windows as a host defeats many of the security benefits of using linux, as all your data passes through the Windows environment at some point.

What are you talking about? Windows "overhead"? Security, but you want to use Windows? Everything passes through Windows from the VM??

Linux is just as vulnerable to malicious code as Windows...

Anyway, for those who want to get their feet wet with Linux there is no reason to go through the hassle of resizing partitions and dealing with boot managers, and having to reboot every time you want to switch OSs.

I assume most of the "guys" here are Windows gamers with quad core rigs running at least 8-16GB RAM. If you allocate 1-8GB RAM to a VM (which it will use just a fraction of) you will notice 0 degradation in performance of either OS. Why not "try before you buy?"

I wish I could have virtualized all of the OSes I tried when I started playing with Linux without having to wipe or multi-boot every time...

.

[smokemm]

I primarily use xubuntu - but I have dual booted Windows 10 for some video games.

[user 18]

What are you talking about? Windows "overhead"? Security, but you want to use Windows? Everything passes through Windows from the VM??

Linux is just as vulnerable to malicious code as Windows...

Anyway, for those who want to get their feet wet with Linux there is no reason to go through the hassle of resizing partitions and dealing with boot managers, and having to reboot every time you want to switch OSs.

I assume most of the "guys" here are Windows gamers with quad core rigs running at least 8-16GB RAM. If you allocate 1-8GB RAM to a VM (which it will use just a fraction of) you will notice 0 degradation in performance of either OS. Why not "try before you buy?"

I wish I could have virtualized all of the OSes I tried when I started playing with Linux without having to wipe or multi-boot every time...

Okay, it seems like we're talking about fundamentally different things here. It seems to me that you're talking about someone who just wants to get their feet wet and play around. I agree that for that purpose, VMs are better than playing around with dual booting and partitioning and all that stuff. What I take issue with is your claim that there is no case in which dual boot is a better choice, and I'm just trying to state that has not been my experience. I'm using linux full time because I tried it in a VM and found I liked it better than Windows. I just keep my Windows install around for the few times I want to play a game or need some Windows-only software -- and even then, only because I had a spare drive that I didn't mind tying up. For me "every time I want to switch OSs" is at most once a month. I've booted Windows twice in 2016.

Windows "overhead"

On my machine, from a cold boot, Windows uses significantly more memory just to idle at the desktop. Perhaps I could optimize some of that away. But the extra resources that it takes just to run Windows compared to running the Linux core is what I refer to as the extra overhead of the OS.

Security, but you want to use Windows? Everything passes through Windows from the VM??

I don't want to use Windows, that's why I use linux. I only use Windows when I can't do what I need to do with linux, which, as mentioned above, is quite rare. My understanding is that when I send keystrokes, they are captured by the Windows OS and then sent to the VM. Perhaps that's wrong, and there's some direct tunnel from the hardware to the VM that I don't know about, but I've never seen any evidence of that. Similarly with any network data I send or receive from the VM, I assume data passes between the external network and the VM via some sort of bridge connection or virtual switch on the host machine, which could expose data sent or received to the host. I don't think VMs run inside a host OS get complete direct access to hardware. If they do, that's my error, and I concede the point.

Linux is just as vulnerable to malicious code as Windows...

Yes, linux is just as vulnerable to malicious code which targets linux as Windows is to malicious code which targets Windows. Last time I checked, there was a lot more malicious code targeted at Windows than at linux.

Anyway, for those who want to get their feet wet with Linux there is no reason to go through the hassle of resizing partitions and dealing with boot managers, and having to reboot every time you want to switch OSs.

Agreed, but that's not my situation. I do use grub, but all of the default settings worked fine for me, and it's completely transparent to my everyday use.

I assume most of the "guys" here are Windows gamers with quad core rigs running at least 8-16GB RAM. If you allocate 1-8GB RAM to a VM (which it will use just a fraction of) you will notice 0 degradation in performance of either OS. Why not "try before you buy?"

I agree with this in terms of just getting a feel for the desktop environment and messing around online. However, it's not the case for everything involved in my day-to-day use. I can't tell the difference between virtual and real in terms of a few tabs on firefox or chrome, but I can easily tell the difference when I've got my whole workflow going.

I wish I could have virtualized all of the OSes I tried when I started playing with Linux without having to wipe or multi-boot every time...

Again, no argument here. But not everyone who uses linux is just doing it to play around. Some people do it because they want something to replace Windows for day-to-day use. And if the latter is the goal, I don't see a reason to spend 100% of my time in a VM for weeks on end just because I might need to use Windows sometime next week.

[smknjoe]

I never said never.

I'll bet that 95% of the people who dual boot could do just fine with VMs though. Again, if you are just using Win once a week...why have a native install? I juggled dual, triple, and even quad booting (with a Macbook) for years and it was a ***** to manage backups and share files. With VMs you backup and restore entire "machines" with ease. And if you go with VMware the guest tools make it almost impossible to tell any difference between a native machine and virtual in terms of performance...including graphics.

[clankgy1]

I'm using Ubuntu 16.04 in two VMs (home and work).   Not good with it, but I'm working on it.

[user 18]

I never said never.

I'll bet that 95% of the people who dual boot could do just fine with VMs though. Again, if you are just using Win once a week...why have a native install? I juggled dual, triple, and even quad booting (with a Macbook) for years and it was a ***** to manage backups and share files. With VMs you backup and restore entire "machines" with ease. And if you go with VMware the guest tools make it almost impossible to tell any difference between a native machine and virtual in terms of performance...including graphics.

The games I want to play don't work on linux. I added linux to a pre-existing Windows install, so it was easier to get set up this way than to also try and reinstall Windows in a VM. My biggest concern is that support for my graphics card isn't the greatest under linux, and so I can't get the same performance I do under Windows. Would I be wrong to assume that my graphics performance in linux would limit any performance I could see in the VM? Because even if I got 100% of the performance that I get under linux in a Windows VM, it wouldn't be good enough.

Regarding backups, I don't bother backing up the Windows drive anymore. Everything that's on it is either contained in an old backup, synced to other machines using dropbox, or game data that's synced to steam. If I was actively using the Windows side, it would be different, but if I needed the Windows side more often I would be looking for a different solution anyway. I handle all of my file backups from linux, no differently than I would if I wasn't running Windows at all.

E: forgot to mention -- apologies for misinterpreting what you were saying. Looking back, your point of view is a bit clearer.

[SBJ]

I'm using Ubuntu 16.04 in two VMs (home and work).   Not good with it, but I'm working on it.

Basically it's like anything else. You just have to use it enough.
I've had a Linux server at home that I've done all kinds of things to. Probably messed more stuff up than I've fixed, but I'm having tons of fun and learning a lot.

[Leslieann]

Long segmented reply

Very well said.

I'll bet that 95% of the people who dual boot could do just fine with VMs though.

And 99.999% of people could get by JUST using Windows without any VM or Linux (or Mac) at all, including myself.

It's a Windows world, if something works on Linux, odds are, it either works on Windows or there is a functional equivalent. VERY, VERY little works on Linux but not Windows. So working from a Windows perspective is relatively simple. Working from a Linux perspective, that's where it gets tricky, but it also happens to be where the real benefits come into play.

We aren't saying Linux is easy, or that people shouldn't try it or use, it took me a LONG time to wean myself off Windows (literally decades), but in the end, especially with Windows 10, I'm much happier as a result.

The games I want to play don't work on linux. I added linux to a pre-existing Windows install, so it was easier to get set up this way than to also try and reinstall Windows in a VM. My biggest concern is that support for my graphics card isn't the greatest under linux, and so I can't get the same performance I do under Windows. Would I be wrong to assume that my graphics performance in linux would limit any performance I could see in the VM? Because even if I got 100% of the performance that I get under linux in a Windows VM, it wouldn't be good enough.

Regarding backups, I don't bother backing up the Windows drive anymore. Everything that's on it is either contained in an old backup, synced to other machines using dropbox, or game data that's synced to steam. If I was actively using the Windows side, it would be different, but if I needed the Windows side more often I would be looking for a different solution anyway. I handle all of my file backups from linux, no differently than I would if I wasn't running Windows at all.

Pretty similar to me.
It's been a while since I gamed, but I do use cad programs, which don't like VM's or Linux. I keep a VERY bare minimum Windows install on my notebook and desktop, though my desktop is only on Linux since my big ssd died (to be fixed soon). It doesn't get updates, it doesn't have an AV, in fact other than IE, it doesn't even have a browser (I could argue IE isn't a browser, but actually a virus factory, but that;s another conversation). The only reason I allow it internet at all is to stream music when I use it or access files on my server, where I keep the cad files. There is literally, nothing in Windows to backup.

[rowdy]

I used to dual-boot Windows and Linux back in the day.  Windows for gaming and Linux for everything else.  It was a real pain, especially things like wanting to check my emails without quitting a game and rebooting.  So I ended up getting a second PC and having one operating system on each.

Many years later I ended up with a Mac as my main workstation, and setup Bootcamp to dual-boot Windows (as the Mac was faster than the other computers I had at the time).  Again Windows for gaming and OS X for everything else.  That continued to be a real pain, so I got another computer again.

To this date I still have two computers - one for Windows (games) and one for OS X (everything else).

Plus the odd VM here and there when I cbf to have both computers running all the time.

[SBJ]

I used to dual-boot Windows and Linux back in the day.  Windows for gaming and Linux for everything else.  It was a real pain, especially things like wanting to check my emails without quitting a game and rebooting.  So I ended up getting a second PC and having one operating system on each.

Many years later I ended up with a Mac as my main workstation, and setup Bootcamp to dual-boot Windows (as the Mac was faster than the other computers I had at the time).  Again Windows for gaming and OS X for everything else.  That continued to be a real pain, so I got another computer again.

To this date I still have two computers - one for Windows (games) and one for OS X (everything else).

Plus the odd VM here and there when I cbf to have both computers running all the time.

You know this isn't a bad idea at all, I might do this.
I'm currently just using Windows because I like to play video games, and I get free licenses from work. But I really want to replace all the tasks I can and move them to a *nix system.
Do you have any experience with multiple monitors on a system like Debian?

[algernon]

Do you have any experience with multiple monitors on a system like Debian?

Works like a charm, and has been for years. Though, I have not used it with more than three - but I can't see why that wouldn't also work flawlessly.

[SBJ]

Do you have any experience with multiple monitors on a system like Debian?

Works like a charm, and has been for years. Though, I have not used it with more than three - but I can't see why that wouldn't also work flawlessly.

Well that's great news. Thank you.

Sent from my stinky butt.

[xtrafrood]

Do you have any experience with multiple monitors on a system like Debian?

Works like a charm, and has been for years. Though, I have not used it with more than three - but I can't see why that wouldn't also work flawlessly.

Well that's great news. Thank you.

Sent from my stinky butt.

Quadro or GTX? Other inquiring minds might want to know..

[user 18]

Do you have any experience with multiple monitors on a system like Debian?

Works like a charm, and has been for years. Though, I have not used it with more than three - but I can't see why that wouldn't also work flawlessly.

Well that's great news. Thank you.

Sent from my stinky butt.

Quadro or GTX? Other inquiring minds might want to know..

My desktop is running 3 monitors with Debian 8 and a R9 280x. I remember having some minor issues with the drivers, but I believe it's working fine with fglrx and using arandr to set the arrangement and resolution.

[smknjoe]

Would I be wrong to assume that my graphics performance in linux would limit any performance I could see in the VM? Because even if I got 100% of the performance that I get under linux in a Windows VM, it wouldn't be good enough.

E: forgot to mention -- apologies for misinterpreting what you were saying. Looking back, your point of view is a bit clearer.

You are not wrong...and no problem, man. It's easy to do.

[smknjoe]

Long segmented reply

Very well said.

I'll bet that 95% of the people who dual boot could do just fine with VMs though.

And 99.999% of people could get by JUST using Windows without any VM or Linux (or Mac) at all, including myself.

It's a Windows world, if something works on Linux, odds are, it either works on Windows or there is a functional equivalent. VERY, VERY little works on Linux but not Windows. So working from a Windows perspective is relatively simple. Working from a Linux perspective, that's where it gets tricky, but it also happens to be where the real benefits come into play.

We aren't saying Linux is easy, or that people shouldn't try it or use, it took me a LONG time to wean myself off Windows (literally decades), but in the end, especially with Windows 10, I'm much happier as a result.

The games I want to play don't work on linux. I added linux to a pre-existing Windows install, so it was easier to get set up this way than to also try and reinstall Windows in a VM. My biggest concern is that support for my graphics card isn't the greatest under linux, and so I can't get the same performance I do under Windows. Would I be wrong to assume that my graphics performance in linux would limit any performance I could see in the VM? Because even if I got 100% of the performance that I get under linux in a Windows VM, it wouldn't be good enough.

Regarding backups, I don't bother backing up the Windows drive anymore. Everything that's on it is either contained in an old backup, synced to other machines using dropbox, or game data that's synced to steam. If I was actively using the Windows side, it would be different, but if I needed the Windows side more often I would be looking for a different solution anyway. I handle all of my file backups from linux, no differently than I would if I wasn't running Windows at all.

Pretty similar to me.
It's been a while since I gamed, but I do use cad programs, which don't like VM's or Linux. I keep a VERY bare minimum Windows install on my notebook and desktop, though my desktop is only on Linux since my big ssd died (to be fixed soon). It doesn't get updates, it doesn't have an AV, in fact other than IE, it doesn't even have a browser (I could argue IE isn't a browser, but actually a virus factory, but that;s another conversation). The only reason I allow it internet at all is to stream music when I use it or access files on my server, where I keep the cad files. There is literally, nothing in Windows to backup.

I think you are still missing my point.

This thread is largely consists of "noobs" and experienced users of Linux asking and giving Linux advice.

Just about every time anyone experienced suggests installing Linux, to a "noob", they say to dual boot...as if it's their only option. 

I say, that if you are running Win, have one box, and just want to try Linux...try it in a VM first.

[xtrafrood]

Long segmented reply

Very well said.

I'll bet that 95% of the people who dual boot could do just fine with VMs though.

And 99.999% of people could get by JUST using Windows without any VM or Linux (or Mac) at all, including myself.

It's a Windows world, if something works on Linux, odds are, it either works on Windows or there is a functional equivalent. VERY, VERY little works on Linux but not Windows. So working from a Windows perspective is relatively simple. Working from a Linux perspective, that's where it gets tricky, but it also happens to be where the real benefits come into play.

We aren't saying Linux is easy, or that people shouldn't try it or use, it took me a LONG time to wean myself off Windows (literally decades), but in the end, especially with Windows 10, I'm much happier as a result.

The games I want to play don't work on linux. I added linux to a pre-existing Windows install, so it was easier to get set up this way than to also try and reinstall Windows in a VM. My biggest concern is that support for my graphics card isn't the greatest under linux, and so I can't get the same performance I do under Windows. Would I be wrong to assume that my graphics performance in linux would limit any performance I could see in the VM? Because even if I got 100% of the performance that I get under linux in a Windows VM, it wouldn't be good enough.

Regarding backups, I don't bother backing up the Windows drive anymore. Everything that's on it is either contained in an old backup, synced to other machines using dropbox, or game data that's synced to steam. If I was actively using the Windows side, it would be different, but if I needed the Windows side more often I would be looking for a different solution anyway. I handle all of my file backups from linux, no differently than I would if I wasn't running Windows at all.

Pretty similar to me.
It's been a while since I gamed, but I do use cad programs, which don't like VM's or Linux. I keep a VERY bare minimum Windows install on my notebook and desktop, though my desktop is only on Linux since my big ssd died (to be fixed soon). It doesn't get updates, it doesn't have an AV, in fact other than IE, it doesn't even have a browser (I could argue IE isn't a browser, but actually a virus factory, but that;s another conversation). The only reason I allow it internet at all is to stream music when I use it or access files on my server, where I keep the cad files. There is literally, nothing in Windows to backup.

I think you are still missing my point.

This thread is largely consists of "noobs" and experienced users of Linux asking and giving Linux advice.

Just about every time anyone experienced suggests installing Linux, to a "noob", they say to dual boot...as if it's their only option. 

I say, that if you are running Win, have one box, and just want to try Linux...try it in a VM first.

I'm still a noob but I will probably advise against dual booting in the future. Trusting the Ubuntu forums for my Linux Mint problems was probably my first mistake. I was dual booting Linux Mint/Windows 7 at the time and I guess I was allergic to documentation for some reason. All the reformatting of Linux Mint somehow corrupted the boot partition of my Windows 7 so I reformatted for Windows 7 and left it that way for nearly a year.

I couldn't understand that maybe I was reading the right answer for me, but I had to modify the information to fit my distro. Or the silly things like oh, I'm tired of Cinnamon I think I'll try Gnome; afterwards I apt-get autoremove.. people on all the forums will say, "Go ahead, there's no way it could cause any harm." So I restart the computer and I'm missing an entire environment and a slew of other important packages because they're somehow linked to everything because everything was automatically installed and is no longer needed.

These days I hotswap between Linux and Windows. I don't want the boot menus to mingle at all. Hell, I even keep the OS backups separate.

[Leslieann]

I think you are still missing my point.

This thread is largely consists of "noobs" and experienced users of Linux asking and giving Linux advice.

Just about every time anyone experienced suggests installing Linux, to a "noob", they say to dual boot...as if it's their only option. 

I say, that if you are running Win, have one box, and just want to try Linux...try it in a VM first.

The thread was what Linux distro does GH users use, and how they use it, not recommend a distro for people who have no experience with it. 

As for dual boot...
I agree, if you want to test or play, but I kind of look at dual booting as a test. If you can't handle some Googling, partitioning and making backups, Linux may not be such a good idea.

[Leslieann]

I'm still a noob but I will probably advise against dual booting in the future. Trusting the Ubuntu forums for my Linux Mint problems was probably my first mistake. I was dual booting Linux Mint/Windows 7 at the time and I guess I was allergic to documentation for some reason. All the reformatting of Linux Mint somehow corrupted the boot partition of my Windows 7 so I reformatted for Windows 7 and left it that way for nearly a year.

I couldn't understand that maybe I was reading the right answer for me, but I had to modify the information to fit my distro. Or the silly things like oh, I'm tired of Cinnamon I think I'll try Gnome; afterwards I apt-get autoremove.. people on all the forums will say, "Go ahead, there's no way it could cause any harm." So I restart the computer and I'm missing an entire environment and a slew of other important packages because they're somehow linked to everything because everything was automatically installed and is no longer needed.

I did that as well once, ok twice, second time I knew how to fix it. And yes, I had probably read the same threads as you, which lead to it. )

Here's why it happened, and you are somewhat correct on why, you were reading Ubuntu's help.
Ubuntu uses the Unity desktop, if you put Cinnamon on it, you still have Unity. Remove Cinnamon and you can fall back to Unity.
Mint uses Cinnamon, which is built on top of Gnome, it's a fork of it. So when you tried Gnome, you overwrote parts of Cinnamon but it would still function (somewhat). Then when you removed Cinnamon, it removed HUGE chunks of Gnome. It's possible to do what you wanted, it just needs to be done in a certain order, or you need to repair Gnome (reinstall) after you removed Cinnamon.

The big question though is did you learn from it and did you have backups?
You're going to make mistakes, big ones, this is kind of why I see partitioning as sort of a baptism or test. Windows and Mac users typically buy a computer with an OS already installed and optimized, this time it's you having to do that and it doesn't always go perfect, especially with an open source os, things will go wrong and you need to be able to deal with it.  Think of it this way, you already experienced the worst that can happen and you passed. If you didn't kill it then, you probably would have later (and still could again).

Even with the best documentation things happen.
I was experimenting with Arch and put Cinnamon on, all was great, and then I installed Virtualbox. There's a little known conflict between those three, and it causes the entire system to dump. Unless you look it up the right way, you wouldn't know it existed and who would expect it.

Remember, with great freedom comes great risk, this wouldn't happen on Windows, but remember, you can't change the entire desktop on Windows. It's why IOS is so stable, you can't do much to it and muck it up. Open IOS up to the customization Android has and  you would see it come crashing down. That's not an insult to Android or IOS, what you prefer is personal.

[xtrafrood]

I'm still a noob but I will probably advise against dual booting in the future. Trusting the Ubuntu forums for my Linux Mint problems was probably my first mistake. I was dual booting Linux Mint/Windows 7 at the time and I guess I was allergic to documentation for some reason. All the reformatting of Linux Mint somehow corrupted the boot partition of my Windows 7 so I reformatted for Windows 7 and left it that way for nearly a year.

I couldn't understand that maybe I was reading the right answer for me, but I had to modify the information to fit my distro. Or the silly things like oh, I'm tired of Cinnamon I think I'll try Gnome; afterwards I apt-get autoremove.. people on all the forums will say, "Go ahead, there's no way it could cause any harm." So I restart the computer and I'm missing an entire environment and a slew of other important packages because they're somehow linked to everything because everything was automatically installed and is no longer needed.

I did that as well once, ok twice, second time I knew how to fix it. And yes, I had probably read the same threads as you, which lead to it. )

Here's why it happened, and you are somewhat correct on why, you were reading Ubuntu's help.
Ubuntu uses the Unity desktop, if you put Cinnamon on it, you still have Unity. Remove Cinnamon and you can fall back to Unity.
Mint uses Cinnamon, which is built on top of Gnome, it's a fork of it. So when you tried Gnome, you overwrote parts of Cinnamon but it would still function (somewhat). Then when you removed Cinnamon, it removed HUGE chunks of Gnome. It's possible to do what you wanted, it just needs to be done in a certain order, or you need to repair Gnome (reinstall) after you removed Cinnamon.

The big question though is did you learn from it and did you have backups?
You're going to make mistakes, big ones, this is kind of why I see partitioning as sort of a baptism or test. Windows and Mac users typically buy a computer with an OS already installed and optimized, this time it's you having to do that and it doesn't always go perfect, especially with an open source os, things will go wrong and you need to be able to deal with it.  Think of it this way, you already experienced the worst that can happen and you passed. If you didn't kill it then, you probably would have later (and still could again).

Even with the best documentation things happen.
I was experimenting with Arch and put Cinnamon on, all was great, and then I installed Virtualbox. There's a little known conflict between those three, and it causes the entire system to dump. Unless you look it up the right way, you wouldn't know it existed and who would expect it.

Remember, with great freedom comes great risk, this wouldn't happen on Windows, but remember, you can't change the entire desktop on Windows. It's why IOS is so stable, you can't do much to it and muck it up. Open IOS up to the customization Android has and  you would see it come crashing down. That's not an insult to Android or IOS, what you prefer is personal.

Scrambling my copy of Linux Mint has definitely tightened my impulse control. Now I can sometimes save my system from crashes and a few other mishaps (knock on wood). I also have some backups just in case. I'm pretty content with Debian and the only problem I can see happening in the future would have to do with new Debian release upgrades or changing GPUs (Radeon to GTX kind of changes)

[dante]

Does anyone know what Microsofts secret sauce is in relation to graphics drivers; and why are these such a struggle in Linux?

Will one day be 2020, 2025, etc... and Linux will still be behind graphic card compatibility?  I'm not trolling I'm sincerely curious.

[Paspie]

Debian Jessie, though I'm aspiring to complete an Arch install someday.

[zcmy]

Scrambling my copy of Linux Mint has definitely tightened my impulse control. Now I can sometimes save my system from crashes and a few other mishaps (knock on wood). I also have some backups just in case. I'm pretty content with Debian and the only problem I can see happening in the future would have to do with new Debian release upgrades or changing GPUs (Radeon to GTX kind of changes)

I must be a horror story then. I've resurrected my linux PC by just nuking it and starting over (yay for media backups)...and by switching GPUs, mobos, and hard drives (copy, paste, go)...without updating drivers and whatnot. I had a linux build that had so much unused stuff that I think I may have accidently killed it once or twice just by trying to back it up.

I'm currently running manjaro as my "downloading hue hue hue" server. Does the job. Also burns whenever I sit in front of it too long. Yay clunky 2006 computer.

[xtrafrood]

Scrambling my copy of Linux Mint has definitely tightened my impulse control. Now I can sometimes save my system from crashes and a few other mishaps (knock on wood). I also have some backups just in case. I'm pretty content with Debian and the only problem I can see happening in the future would have to do with new Debian release upgrades or changing GPUs (Radeon to GTX kind of changes)

I must be a horror story then. I've resurrected my linux PC by just nuking it and starting over (yay for media backups)...and by switching GPUs, mobos, and hard drives (copy, paste, go)...without updating drivers and whatnot. I had a linux build that had so much unused stuff that I think I may have accidently killed it once or twice just by trying to back it up.

I'm currently running manjaro as my "downloading hue hue hue" server. Does the job. Also burns whenever I sit in front of it too long. Yay clunky 2006 computer.

The icon pack for Manjaro/Gnome looks pretty amazing

[fohat.digs]

Does anyone know what Microsofts secret sauce is in relation to graphics drivers; and why are these such a struggle in Linux?

Will one day be 2020, 2025, etc... and Linux will still be behind graphic card compatibility?  I'm not trolling I'm sincerely curious.

I have never had a problem with graphics but have had tremendous problems with connectivity in general and wireless in particular.
Last time I checked, which was recently, Mint 17.3 still failed to talk to my 2015 Galaxy phone via USB!

There is no doubt in my mind that in the "paid" world people expect that the gear that they paid good money for to work properly, and so the people who are being paid to make it so do their jobs. If nobody is being paid to make FOSS work, then somebody may or may not get around to it in their spare time.

On the opposite end of the timeline, I have some Windows 98/XP-vintage hardware that Microsoft orphaned long ago that the Linux geeks easily keep running.

[zcmy]

Does anyone know what Microsofts secret sauce is in relation to graphics drivers; and why are these such a struggle in Linux?

Will one day be 2020, 2025, etc... and Linux will still be behind graphic card compatibility?  I'm not trolling I'm sincerely curious.

I have never had a problem with graphics but have had tremendous problems with connectivity in general and wireless in particular.
Last time I checked, which was recently, Mint 17.3 still failed to talk to my 2015 Galaxy phone via USB!

There is no doubt in my mind that in the "paid" world people expect that the gear that they paid good money for to work properly, and so the people who are being paid to make it so do their jobs. If nobody is being paid to make FOSS work, then somebody may or may not get around to it in their spare time.

On the opposite end of the timeline, I have some Windows 98/XP-vintage hardware that Microsoft orphaned long ago that the Linux geeks easily keep running.

Yep, 2004 thinkpad I have is still supported in Linux. It's great.

[Leslieann]

Does anyone know what Microsofts secret sauce is in relation to graphics drivers; and why are these such a struggle in Linux?

Will one day be 2020, 2025, etc... and Linux will still be behind graphic card compatibility?  I'm not trolling I'm sincerely curious.

Money.

On top of what Fohat.digs said, Microsoft has a huge market share, and even larger gaming share. It helps too that MS works directly with them, and provides tools to make 3d rendering in Windows easier than other os's. So in MS you have people who pay, expecting it to work, a huge demand, and a company helping make their product work, all of which Linux lacks.

While we may not always like what Google and Canonical they have given Linux a boost in those areas.

Debian Jessie, though I'm aspiring to complete an Arch install someday.

Try Manjaro, it's an easy way to play with Arch, similar to Debian or Ubuntu. I recommend tossing it into a VM and installing the tings you normally would, because while Arch has it's similarities, it has some quirks.  If you want a more pure Arch experience, try Architect, which builds Arch from scratch for you, you get pure Arch, just as if you had compiled it yourself, but without the time and hassle.

[smknjoe]

Does anyone know what Microsofts secret sauce is in relation to graphics drivers; and why are these such a struggle in Linux?

Will one day be 2020, 2025, etc... and Linux will still be behind graphic card compatibility?  I'm not trolling I'm sincerely curious.

This is why:

[xtrafrood]

Does anyone know what Microsofts secret sauce is in relation to graphics drivers; and why are these such a struggle in Linux?

Will one day be 2020, 2025, etc... and Linux will still be behind graphic card compatibility?  I'm not trolling I'm sincerely curious.

This is why:

He must have REALLY wanted to impress her

[TacticalCoder]

Does anyone know what Microsofts secret sauce is in relation to graphics drivers; and why are these such a struggle in Linux?

Linux is powering 99.5% of the Top 500 supercomputers. It's powering billions of phones. It's powering something like 70% of the active web servers of this planet. It's pretty much powering the Google / Amazon / Facebook infrastructure. It's powering hundreds of millions of routers. It's powering Raspberry Pi's and other tiny devices.

And many, many things I forgot. I guess gaming is simply one of these domains where Linux isn't on top yet and it's probably not the main focus.

Now even if it may be hard to believe, the whole GPU / graphic thing on Linux has gotten way better today than it was 15 or 20 years ago: back then it was really very very painful. I remember fighting with drivers and computing modelines manually to get this or that graphic mode supported on my GPU / CRT. I'd even hang on to know supported GPUs (and Ethernet cards too) and move them from PC to PC when upgrading (back then you were upgrading PC way more often: Moore's law was still true).

Now I just got a new PC a few days ago: plugged in the DisplayPort cable and, boom, native resolution and everything working on the first try.

So, yup, maybe 2030, maybe 2050. In any case it's going to be total world domination : )

[dante]

So right now in July 2016 - what is the absolute best graphics card that is 100% supported by Linux?

[vivalarevolución]

Does anyone know what Microsofts secret sauce is in relation to graphics drivers; and why are these such a struggle in Linux?

Linux is powering 99.5% of the Top 500 supercomputers. It's powering billions of phones. It's powering something like 70% of the active web servers of this planet. It's pretty much powering the Google / Amazon / Facebook infrastructure. It's powering hundreds of millions of routers. It's powering Raspberry Pi's and other tiny devices.

And many, many things I forgot. I guess gaming is simply one of these domains where Linux isn't on top yet and it's probably not the main focus.

Now even if it may be hard to believe, the whole GPU / graphic thing on Linux has gotten way better today than it was 15 or 20 years ago: back then it was really very very painful. I remember fighting with drivers and computing modelines manually to get this or that graphic mode supported on my GPU / CRT. I'd even hang on to know supported GPUs (and Ethernet cards too) and move them from PC to PC when upgrading (back then you were upgrading PC way more often: Moore's law was still true).

Now I just got a new PC a few days ago: plugged in the DisplayPort cable and, boom, native resolution and everything working on the first try.

So, yup, maybe 2030, maybe 2050. In any case it's going to be total world domination : )

I'm wondering what is powering the other 0.5% of supercomputers.

[smknjoe]

Custom OSs.

[Leslieann]

So right now in July 2016 - what is the absolute best graphics card that is 100% supported by Linux?

S3 or Matrox, followed by Intel.
Seriously, no current ones are 100% supported, though Intel actually does quite well.

Nvidia despite being the worst supported actually works the best if you want to game in Linux. That said, I refuse to support that company after seeing others and myself repeatedly burned by them (bad drivers, bad hardware, lying to customers and investors, they can give Comcast lessons on how to screw people). If anyone wants to know more about this I would be glad to expand on it, but basically, my attitude towards that company is identical to Linus' in the above video. I avoid that company like the plague, I'll take the performance hit just to make sure they don't get my money and I push my customers to not give them any money.

AMD has stated they intend to put more into Linux, however, they've said this a few times in the past and while they make gains each time and performance has greatly improved, they still need significant work. They just haven't put enough engineers on the project. They do work okay though. AMD is not perfect, they make mistakes, and you won't get quite the same performance as Nvidia, but at least they don't actively try and screw you over just to save 2 cents.

Intel, despite being seriously outgunned in terms of hardware and research (and in some ways hostile towards Linux one minute and friendly the next), has made HUGE strides in Linux (and Windows), and in some tests, Intel can beat both of them. Depending on the benchmark in question, Intel 4000 has outperformed the Nvidia GT 740, AMD 6570, even an R9. I'm not saying if you want to game in Linux use Intel, those video cards have features Intel doesn't even offer, and while a synthetic benchmark, it gives you some idea just how bad Nvidia and AMD drivers really are and how good the Intel ones are by comparison.

I use AMD in my desktop and Intel in my laptops, if a customer needs a graphics card, or a card fro multiple monitors and such, I try to buy AMD for them.

Bottom line, if you want real world gaming performance in Linux, use Nvidia, just be prepared to make Linus sad and sell your soul in the process.

[vivalarevolución]

When you are referring to Intel graphics cards, you are talking about the integrated GPUs, correct?  Because I didn't think they made stand alone graphics cards.

[SBJ]

When you are referring to Intel graphics cards, you are talking about the integrated GPUs, correct?  Because I didn't think they made stand alone graphics cards.

Yes I'm fairly certain he means the HD graphics that they have within the CPU.

[vivalarevolución]

When you are referring to Intel graphics cards, you are talking about the integrated GPUs, correct?  Because I didn't think they made stand alone graphics cards.

Yes I'm fairly certain he means the HD graphics that they have within the CPU.

Yea thanks, I know it was kind of a dumb, obvious question.

[Vadisi]

I use mostly use Manjaro because I'm too lazy to install Arch myself.