Provide out-of-box ease of use on everyday devices operated by low-skilled users.
I mean, Linux technically could, but the incentive to push for this is not nearly as high as the commercial incentives of providing this experience using Windows. So unfortunately it currently can’t.
That’s manufacturer support. Not Windows or Microsoft. Try installing any discrete graphics card under Windows on arm. It’s a nightmare. Installing them under Linux on arm can be very temperamental too, but it is a better experience than on Windows
I disagree, this is a matter of how good the distro defaults are. Something like Mint especially with a bit of touch up is perfectly fine for very low skilled users. Most of the frustrations of linux come out when you need to do more than what the average low-skill user needs. If they can find the icons of the apps they want, that is all that is needed.
This is something that too many people don’t understand.
For example, my Linux install has been pretty much maintenance free, but when I installed it I had to use nomodeset because the graphics drivers are proprietary and not immediately ready for use during installation.
For a low skill user, you have already lost. Even that small barrier is enough to deter your laymen.
Low skill users will use what comes installed on their machine, so installation quirks like that are not relevant for them. They don’t install Windows either.
What do you mean by installation quirk? Having a GPU and needing a driver?
That seems pretty common to me. I also know people interested in PC gaming who are also low skill and I certainly wouldn’t recommend Linux to them (only exception being the Steam Deck).
More like to them its either ‘does work’ or ‘doesnt work’. If they ever had a running system they’d most likely never change anything and end up breaking the gpu driver.
For the most part I’d say installers succeed automatically installing drivers too (or are preinstalled in the laptop case)
The moment you mention the Terminal, it’s a wrap for most users.
That said, Ubuntu is at a point where you could almost entirely avoid the Terminal if you wanted. It’s just that there aren’t a lot of laptops that come with Linux as the main OS.
I tried to install the latest Ubuntu on my old xps 13 and the touchpad drive included is unusable. It’s way way too sensitive, and there is no settings to change it. You have to completely replace it with something else apparently.
I found several form or reddit posts indicating there was so setting. I kind abandoned the whole thing once I found several pieces of software are no longer releasing deb files and are using some kind of flatpack that wasn’t working. I’m completely ignorant of current linux, but I can’t help but feel like it was easier to manage back in 2008 when I daily drove it.
I'm not so sure about that. It took me forever yesterday to get my international keyboard setup to work on Ubuntu the way I wanted it to. I'm saying that as someone who's been using Unix/Linux in a school, IT and home setting for 30 years. It was unforgivably difficult.
One of the major silent qualifications for posts like these are “if you read/speak English and have a standard keyboard layout”.
Which is sad. I had an Egyptian friend who told me he had to use Linux in English because the Arabic support wasn’t quite there. This wasn’t a problem for him, but would have been a non-starter for his family.
We really need to stop pushing these outdated and over complex distos like Ubuntu also. It’s 50/50 if they can find what they want via Google and find out how to add a ppa that is going to be dark magic, and the almost 100% all that added stuff to do basic stuff like game is going to go belly up when the new upgrade comes along. Rolling releases get a bad rep for some reason but they shine for users that don’t want to search for new software that’s going to work and not break/require intervention with every upgrade. /rant
I gotta say, the frequency with which you hear that Android/ChromeOS is actually Linux and it totally counts, or how successful Linux is on other applications is REALLY much less flattering to desktop Linux than people claiming that seem to think.
I'd argue the moment you have to pick a distro in the first place you've made the guy's point. That's already way past the level of interest, engagement or decision-making capacity most baseline users have. Preinstalled, tightly bound versions like Android or SteamOS are a different question, maybe. Maaaaybe.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm calling out a fallacious argument. If your take is that Desktop Linux is super accessible and mainstream because Android is a thing that's a bad take.
Here's how I know it's a bad take: if I come over to any of the "what Distro should I use first" threads here and I tell you to try Samsung Dex you're probably not going to be as willing to conflate those two things anymore.
But hey, yeah, no, Android is super accessible. So is ChromeOS. If that's your bar for what Linux has become for home users, then yeah, for sure. Linux is on par with Windows in terms of accessibility. May as well call it quits on the desktop distros muddying the waters, then. I mean, if all that is Linux what are those? 1% of the Linux userbase? 0.1%? Why bother at that point?
No, I'm not talking past it. I just have less an issue with it. The Android thing is disingenuous, though.
But I did explicitly address it above, when I said once you have to pick a distro at all the OP has a point because that's already past the level of insight casual users have or care about. It's literally right there in my first response to you.
Yeah I think it’s a similar problem to federation. Yeah it’s confusing at first and the fact that it’s often worth it and that that’s actually a sign of it being good and resilient to bad stuff that standard users do dislike doesn’t mean you keep them.
I think there’s however room for a linux based tightly compacted desktop distro. If it’s treated as independent and there’s easy ways to do everything that terminal does outside of terminal (and most importantly default to that) you could probably gain some share. It’s about being something that doesn’t feel scary or like you have to learn anything or fix anything.
Yep, that was my point. There's nothing fundamentally alien to using desktop Linux for most tasks when it's standardized and preinstalled, you see that with the Raspberry Pi and Steam OS and so on. The problem is that people like to point at that (and less viable examples like ChromeOS or Android) as examples that desktop Linux is already great and intuitive and novice-friendly, and that's just not realistic. I've run Linux on multiple platforms on and off since the 90s, and to this day the notion of getting it up and running on a desktop PC with mainstream hardware feels like a hassle and the idea of getting it going in a bunch of more arcane hardware, like tablet hybrids or laptops with first party drivers just doesn't feel reasonable unless it's as a hobbyist project.
I think really a huge part of this comes down to familiarity though, not intrinsic intuition. Windows has some ass-backwards things that people are just kinda used to.
To be fair, the amount of tech support and help that low-skilled users need on windows would suggest this isn’t really true. A lot of these people have been using windows for decades and still have frequent issues with it.
I’m not claiming that most Linux distros are better than windows with this, but I don’t think windows can be claimed to be a good OS for the tech-inept either.
And most users don’t even notice the issues - I feel lime the bar has really become can I click on, enter password and open a web browser, a bar which limux has surpassed for decades
Though most linux users probably also scare away the layman with the hacky stuff we got going on lol
You say “everyday devices”, but imo when it comes to tablets, phones, smart TVs, car audio systems, etc, android does this WAY better than windows does.
Only if you compare computers that come preinstalled with Windows, operated by users that are already familiar with Windows.
A non-technical user is completely out of their element trying to install Windows, and a computer that comes preinstalled with Linux is easier to use than a Windows PC (no driver installation necessary, no hunting for software on the internet among spam links and ads, preinstalled software for most every-day tasks).
I enjoy Linux, I'm even suse certified for what that's worth, but even I have to admit that there is a difference between a computer that will turn on and compute with Linux and a computer that has all of the correct drivers and works correctly in Linux.
I’m now hearing of people coming into the work force that don’t know how to use “a computer” and want to do all their work on iPads. It’s purely anecdotal, but the person telling me the tale was saying this person wasn’t going to make it through their probation period for this reason alone.
It wasn’t even a technology company. A finance firm or something.
To be fair, most people in the workforce were never trained on the likes of Microsoft Teams. Learning this for most people takes a little bit of fucking around and taking notes of certain buttons while you were doing things the way you are used to.
I know most people don’t seem to have the ability to look through menus and identify the thing closest to what they want to do. I think software might be more difficult to use now, too - the trend for “clean” design means that usability and discoverability goes out the window.
I think it's also that people aren't encouraged to explore. A bit of clicking around and eyeballing the options you do have can go a long way. I had to teach myself how to use and exploit Open shift this way lol
A computer preinstalled with Linux is definitely more likely to confuse than you imagine
I can only see it being the case if there is an implicit assumption these people are already familiar with Windows. If we remove that assumption, I can see it going either way, but it's not even remotely "definitely more likely to confuse".
The Windows market share has wavered between 90 and 70% over the years.
I don't know that you can ignore that assumption.
It depends on the application anwyay. My last set up for a non-techie was a Samsung Android tablet with a keyboard cover. It's now harder to get that person on either a Windows or Linux computer.
I fail to see how (again, I’m talking about people new to computers, not people already used to Windows).
You have office, a browser, a mail program, music player, etc. preinstalled, automatic updates, and an app store (usually named “software”) with a search function and a friendly “install” button to look for more software.
Printers are installed automatically when you’re in the same network or connect them via USB.
If you plug in your phone or an USB stick, it shows up in the file manager.
i've supported end users in homes and small business for over twenty years. yup. for the most part, they're dumb as bricks. they can do the things they've learned through repetition or have been taught to them (often repeatedly), but stray off that well-worn path and they're completely clueless. when i ask them to look at the icons next to the clock on their desktop--a full half don't even know where the clock is on the screen, even though it's there, like, all the time. and if i gave each of them a blank pc and a bootable usb with (any) os installer, i'd guess that maybe 1 out of 50 could get it booted up and installed--and that'd only be if the pc auto-booted to that usb and started the installer after seeing no boot files on the internal storage.
Oh, absolutely. My favorite conversation to have with non-techies is
"It doesn't work."
"OK, what does it say on the screen."
"I don't know."
Like, they can read. I've seen them read. But the moment they get something on the screen with text they haven't seen before they freeze. And even if they can read the plainly written text saying stuff like "hey, we need to install something, is that fine?" they can't parse what is being said. Half the requests from help I get from people are about them getting a prompt to update something that needs manual permission and them being too insecure and scared to know what they should do.
So yeah, the bar is much lower than people think. As in, the question "Do you want to do this thing you have to do and is fine to do? Yes/No" is an unsurmountable obstacle.
It's not, though. Some of the people I'm talking about are experts at intricate, complicated things. But for digital natives and tech-heads this language is second nature, that's not true of everybody. And for some of those people they know enough to realize that sometimes computers lie to them. Is this message telling me to press a button real or is it malicious? Yeah, I can tell pretty easily, but they can't.
There are tons of people out there, of all ages, for whom computers are scary bombs that can steal their money or their data or stop working at the slightest provocation. Thing is, they're not wrong.
And lest you think this is just end users and non-tech people: I have gotten the same sort of responses from system admins for major companies when I try to walk them through something.
I’d argue that most people, including the ones who administer systems, don’t know how computers work. They’ve learned some things by rote, sure, but beyond that they’re helpless.
Oh, but we haven't talked about the opposite thing, which is when tech-savvy user X thinks they know better than whichever IT person or team set up a process and decide to ignore it or bypass it and then they break something and nobody's happy.
I see your point, though. I mean, even if you know what you're doing there are many times where you just need to get a thing done and you just want somebody to make it so the computer does the thing, rather than understand how the thing-doing is done. We forget, but computers are actually super hard and software is overcomplicated and it's honestly a miracle most of it works at all most of the time.
The folks who know enough to know they need processes aren't the problem. If you give them instructions they'll follow them and things will be okay.
It's the folks who don't know that they need processes who are the problem. The folks who, after having walked them through something ten times, ask you to do it. They see an error message like "TCP connection timeout" and have no idea where to start looking, except to send me an email so I can tell them that they probably have network issues.
I agree: The fact that it works at all is astounding.
Hit the ground running deploying…pretty much anything.
Was running game servers on my Windows PC through Docker and they were super easy to set up. I got a new PC and decided to repurpose my old computer into an Ubuntu server to get some experience with Unix. I have only been more frustrated once in my entire life. Sure, once things are set up on Linux they are really powerful, but the barrier to entry is so absurdly high and running anything “out of the box” is literally impossible by design.
I feel your pain, ugh. Setting up certain types of software can be a pain in the ass because there's almost always dependencies that need to be set up first; in addition, it's not always clear what you're supposed to install or how to do it the right way. A lot of Linux-related documentation out there isn't geared towards beginners and leaves out a lot of important explanatory and contextual information, which just makes it more frustrating. Unnecessarily, in my opinion.
However, I gotta mention that Ubuntu - though widely used - is sorta notorious for being user unfriendly and isn't always the most appropriate choice for a beginner Linux user. If anyone reading this is thinking about trying Linux for the first time, I would consider Linux Mint. It's a Linux distro that is actually based on Ubuntu (which is based on Debian), but it works "out of the box" better than most and should be a positive experience for most users. It's pretty solid.
That’s honestly super confusing to me. Not just experientially from using Ubuntu but also just I’ve never heard it described that way. It’s definitely near the top of list of out-of-box friendly distros.
Graphical installer. Full App Store UI. Desktop versions that come with lots of common software. It’s hard to get much simpler than that.
Truly, if anything, I would consider desktop Ubuntu to be somewhat power user unfriendly.
Ubuntu I would say is a terrible desktop OS full stop, and all the derivatives also, as well as Debian. They are fine for a server where someone wants stability of package change above all else, but as a desktop we should NOT be pushing new users to these distros full of outdated software when easier to use rolling distros are available, where adding anything new isn’t adding a repo that is almost certainly going to break things on an OS update.
Ubuntu takes 6 monthly cuts from Debian Testing, adds some in house stuff puts them through QA and performs a release.
Linux Mint is produced by Cinnamon devs, similar to KDE Neon. They take the last Ubuntu LTS, remove many of the in house additions, add the latest Cinnamon desktop and release.
Cinnamon got upstreamed into Debian to make the process easier.
Yes, that is why I included Debian and the Ubuntu spins (Mint/etc.). They all run outdated software, and I don’t think in 2024 they are a suitable desktop OS for someone new coming to Linux. They were fine back in the day when things were not moving as fast, but now, well running one of them is a disservice to the user IMHO. Unless your only using your system to make spreadsheets using an outdated version of LibreOffice and don’t mind that your 6+ months behind the rest of the world.
That’s a letter U problem. I can administer Linux a bajillion times easier than windows, because I do it for a living, and haven’t touched MS since Server 2010. Also Docker in Windows is LOL. You’re leveraging Linux to shit on Linux. Lets do that all in IIS and see how you feel.
Pointing out that you find it easy because you do it for a living isn't a very good counter to their point - most people do other things besides Linux for a living
He’s… not wrong though. I mean look, deploying things is somewhat inherently the task of professionals and enthusiasts. To say that deploying things on Windows is easier than Linux is going to be really really hard to defend. Not to even mention the docker layer.
Permissions on Windows are notoriously insecure. By default, literally everything is executable in Windows. Docker is very much the same (insecure by default; in Windows).
Your permissions problems in Linux are a feature, not a bug. You just didn’t understand what you were doing when you tried to get it set up. Otherwise you wouldn’t be complaining about permissions errors. That’s the very definition of complaining about your own ignorance.
I get that the point of this thread is something along the lines of, “running Docker images is a breeze” but I think a more relevant point would be, “Docker images run better” (in Linux).
Docker images will run much faster and more efficiently in Linux. It’s just how it was meant to work. WSL doesn’t work like WINE: it’s actually an emulator and will always be slower than native Linux.
As you said, I am perfectly aware that in an ideal world security would be on lockdown. How it behaves on Linux is how it SHOULD work. That doesn’t change the main point that you can’t hit the ground running with Docker containers in Linux.
I guess I can’t deny your experience is your experience, but again if you’re running Docker on Windows, Windows is just running a Linux VM or WSL to do this. And I can assure you that any serious person running containerized workloads for production type deployments will be doing this on a Linux host.
Docker has pretty good docs for installation on the major Linux distros, so without more info I can’t really say much else.
Hold on, did you just low-key state that running Linux docker containers on Windows ends up giving you the best of both worlds? Run Linux server software in docker containers, run client software natively on Windows?
This is what’s holding the community back. The “get good” advice isn’t really advice and keeps Linux from hitting the mainstream. I get it you’re amazing at Linux but the rest of us shouldn’t have to go back to school to get a computer degree and become a Linux professional in order to use it. This is the same person that replies to questions about Linux with “why do you need the GUI just use the command line instead or it’s dead simple just type: followed by like 80 lines of code that people can’t make heads or tails of because they’re novices. Man I get that you want to flex but it’s a pretty strange flex.
OTOH, many people can’t make heads from tails regarding windows, icons or buttons, and they don’t get the contextual clues that the GUI gives for any operating system. They don’t see them, and if they do they’re unable to make the automatic inferences most of us long time users obtain from them. They act as people who are blind from birth and suddenly see, who have problems to understand tridimensionality; the GUI is not in their mind model of how to work with computers, and they have a lot of difficulty interacting with it.
So that makes the “get good” advice valid? What are you talking about bro? I didn’t say Linux isn’t valid. I think you must have replied to me specifically on accident because your response isn’t germane to my reply. Or if you feel it is please explain. Make sure you use as many polysyllabic words as possible. I think you wrote up one of the Linux documents I’m to understand.
No, my point is that they’re lost causes and they’re untrainable.
Ah... I still don't get how that's meant to refute the previous person's point that elitism and the "git gud" attitude around Linux contributes to it's inability to become mainstream.
If anything your reply only reinforces their point, because you seem to be suggesting we throw anybody who struggles to learn it to the curb.
This is a very dangerous, and unfortunately widespread, generalization. The shitty ones are the loudest ones, and I’m sorry that most of your experience with linux users has been with them. I promise, much of the community are kindhearted individuals who simply use linux because of its ideals, or because they’re developers, or privacy enthusiasts, or those who bought a steam deck and think the lack of windows is pretty neat.
Yeah, I started working for a company with a lot of Windows servers two years ago and I still can’t wrap my brain around them. I’ve been a Linux sysadmin/sysarchitect for 20+ years and I’m still completely lost how to get Windows to much of anything. I usually don’t have to do much on those servers, but when I do its StackOverflow that’s really administering them. It’s because I lack foundational knowledge about windows and also because I’m fine not having that knowledge.
Don’t get me wrong - I know that they are, and I know that Linux is superior for running docker containers. The thing is that Windows handles all the permissions for you. An average Joe can get a docker container up and running on Windows. You need significantly more Linux-specific knowledge to get a container running on Linux, and the advice given by the community is often cryptic for beginners.
Then try podman! The podman desktop application by redhat is probably one of the nicest interfaces for container orchestration i’ve seen in a while, if not a little bare. Podman is rootless by design and there’s basically no configuration needed (for non-commercial purposes, anyway) besides loading up the gui, downloading your images, and spinning up whatever software you need.
That’s very weird as with docker on windows you technically run your containers in a linux vm, and besides that, in my experience windows is not nearly stable enough to be useful for running services.
All while I have been deploying selfhosted services for myself without problems on Linux for years. My only problem has been the constantly overloaded system, but that’s no surprise when you run heavy services on the 10+ year old portable hard drive system disk. Windows would only perform worse in that environment.
Yeah… this feels like a very bad example. I am honestly curious as to specifics here, because Ubuntu setup is pretty dead simple with the graphical installer. And like you said docker is native linux.
Saying running anything out of the box is “impossible by design” on Ubuntu is objectively wrong frankly. Maybe you could argue they haven’t succeeded in their goal of being super out of the box friendly, not sure I’d agree but at least you’d have leg to stand on.
The person is correct in this isn't a Linux problem, but relates to your experience.
Windows worked by giving everyone full permissions and opening every port. While Microsoft has tried to roll that back the administration effort goes into restricting access.
Linux works on the opposite principle, you have to learn how to grant access to users and expose ports.
You would have to learn this mental switch no matter what Linux task your trying to learn
Dockers guide to setting up a headless docker is copy/paste. You can install Docker Desktop on Linux and the effort is identical to windows. The only missing step is
sudo usermod -aG docker $user
To ensure your user can access the docker host as a local user.
The secured Sandbox maybe? The windows sandbox is pretty awesome for day to day use imo. And no a template VM or container isnt really the same thing. The sandbox has the task of making sure that there is nothing that can break out. Afaik the sanbox has done a pretty good job so far in that aspect. Does linux bring a comparable option to the table? Would love to find out, changig as many aspects of my life to linux is the best thing to do.
Flatpak and Snap are Linux packaging formats that have sandboxing implemented and it’s pretty solid. There’s also Firejail for running sketchy applications in a stronger sandbox
Reall great article. Thanks for sharing. But I dont know where you get the “literally a template” idea from. The article is explaining pretty well how its made and there isn’t one thing that leads to the assumption that this was just a template that gets booted up.
It says in the article that windows sandbox is using a “base image”. It boots up the image, you do stuff then close it, and the next time you boot it up it’s the base image again. Is that not what a template VM would do?
The primary difference between a usual VM template and this is that it’s small. “When installed the dynamic base package it occupies about 100MB disk space”. That’s because it’s essentially mounting a bunch of the system files immutably. You could theoretically do the same on Linux, but it probably wouldn’t be worth the effort.
Most of the advancements they have is under the hood stuff, like linking files instead of directly including them or managing memory. Battery state pass through and graphics OOTB is cool though, depending on your setup you might have to put in a bit of work to make that happen on Linux.
Yep thats what I meant. But also imo templated VM or Containers are not aimed to be not break-out safe. This is the case for this though, which why I think it would not be fair to it to set it side by side to a normal vm template or container. Besides that it also brings some nice added bonuses, some of which you listed.
Podman container completely closed off. ChromeOS shows that everything is possible on Linux (their Linux integration is a VM, running a container with the Distro, and the apps are displayed over wayland on the local host)
People really dislike it when you point this out, But the security model on Linux is lacking. Yes, we have things like apparmor and SELinux, but compare it to sandboxd on macOS. The windows sandbox isn’t perfect, but it’s really user-friendly, and it works in most cases. Linux doesn’t have a direct equivalent. We’ve made great strides with making immutable distros through things like flatpack, and snap, but something that they failed to do is implement a least privilege model that is as robust as sandboxd on macOS.
Biometric login. It is available to an extent through fprint on Linux but support is not there for all hardware and it isn’t a very seamless experience to setup at the moment
The Windows Hello camera enumerates under Linux as just another webcam that activates the flashing LEDs when it turns on (I’ve found a number of neat uses for this, including having a ridiculously low gain IR camera that I can just use for whatever and have what would be a surprisingly good emulation of the Wii sensor bar for use with Dolphin if it weren’t constantly flashing on and off), and there is software (Howdy) for using it to sign in. Unfortunately, signing in with your face of course precludes using your password for decryption, meaning that after you start some applications you’ll be prompted to type your password anyway to unlock your system keyring, and perhaps more importanty SDDM isn’t smart enough to interface with fprintd/howdy properly and doesn’t even try to activate the biometric sensor until you type something in the password box.
(Also, hilariously, because of how I set it up initially to accept my face instead of a password for sudo, I couldn’t configure it to check whether the terminal was remote, so when I ssh’d in and tried to sudo, it turned on the hello camera however far away that was and looked for my face, only prompting me for a password after facial rec timed out.)
Lol - I was parodying your comment, actually 🙂. Not sure if fingerprint is standard api, but I suspect there is some proprietary stuff going on.
In the end it’s not about blaming Linux, it’s about getting adoption to a critical mass where commercial entities can realize a business case to support. Then the ecosystem will thrive.
Linux (and BSD for router workload) absolutely owns the server world. Even MS let’s you run SQL Server on Linux). The desktop isn’t there yet wrt adoption, but it’s growing. Things like fingerprint sensors are definitely in the desktop (closer to end user) world and if it’s the business use case that is the area of most growth, as I suspect it is (in India, especially) then I think these sorts of modules have higher likelihood of being adopted.
Biometrics authentication seems to me to be entirely useless. It’s less secure and more easily spoofed than passwords, and if you need more security 2FA or a physical key (digital or otherwise) provide it. It would be nice to have the support I guess, but the tech itself just seems like a waste of money.
Windows is definitely easier to install older programs on. Linux is getting better, especially thanks to steam/valve imo, but it’s impossible to recommend Linux to just about anyone that’s not in IT or interested in tech as everything seems to have a caviat or workaround you have to do to get stuff either working or just limping along. For instance…I installed endeavor on my msi gaming laptop and getting it to use my 2070 card over my Intel graphics was a nightmare for a first timer. I can’t recommend it especially when I just wanna game.
Windows has a better initial setup. Often, when installing a new distro I gotta spend a couple of hours installing, troubleshooting and customizing what I need on Linux (even on beginner distros) while on Windows, you just install it, download a couple of apps from the web and restart to catch up on updates.
ITT: Many legitimate use-cases, and people shitting all over them.
This highlights one thing that Windows undoubtedly does better, and that’s community support. With Windows and OSX things tend to just work, or to have limitations that people just accept. Linux becomes a lifestyle, when some people just want a tool that does a thing.
Windows saves me prescious time to do other things. I went through the Dos, Win 3.1, Windows XP era thoroughly enjoying my time spending hours and hours learning about how to get my new sound card, network card , printer, game , software, mouse, newfangled USB device or whatever working, then my priorities evolved and the time pressures of family and career mean I just want my PC to work and for my use case it does. I’m heading for retirement soon so maybe I’ll have more time to give Linux a go
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by modern Linux.
Most hardware works out of the box. You don't even need to do an automated install. For other things, I can plug in a printer and it'll do the hard work for me. Ditto with Nvidia cards (AMD and Intel work out of the box)
As for games, Linux can now run something like 90% of Steam games and for the vast majority, there's no ****Ing around to do. Just install Steam and download your game. You may want to check ProtonDB to ensure your title is supported but in general the only games with showstoppers are those that use anti-cheat.
Linux distros have been rocking the app store model for a long time now, with the option to do things the Windows way if a vendor really wants to go that way.
Add comment