How is it that not more people switch to Linux?

[goatedpenguin]

On 3/19/2024 at 9:54 AM, WereCat said:

AMD (Wayland). Do you fall into the category I described?

How is the performance when using xorg?I use an nvidia gpu with proprietary drivers and it works perfectly fine, I would assume that AMD would do better but that sounds otherwise...

[WereCat]

1 hour ago, goatedpenguin said:

How is the performance when using xorg?

No idea. Didn't try

[goatedpenguin]

2 minutes ago, WereCat said:

No idea. Didn't try

Wayland imo kinda buggy for some.

[Nayr438]

7 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

I can’t be bothered to start a new thread. 
About once a year I give Linux a go. I think the problem I’ve had in the past is that I try to “cold turkey” Windows. I’ll be making the swap in the next day or two. 

In order to not go cold turkey and still be able to play games with anti cheat that don’t work on Linux, or DCS which uses a joystick and throttle that the control software won’t work on Linux, or VR gaming.

I want Linux to be my primary OS. Anything that doesn’t work on Linux will be done on Windows. I do record games and stream. I’ve found ways to seemingly get that to work on Linux. 

Am I better off with dual booting or running a Windows VM inside Linux? compute power and CPU cores aren’t an issue. 

If You go with a Windows VM for anything that heavily uses 3D Acceleration such as gaming, You will pretty much need a secondary GPU to passthrough to the VM and motherboard that properly supports iommu groups. If you don't want small stutters or the host and guest fighting for resources, then you need to look into isolating cpu cores and memory away from the host.
The Arch Wiki is a great resource for setting this up, PCI passthrough via OVMF

If you throw gaming out the window you may be able to get away without gpu passthrough with VMWare Player / Workstation which is the only solution with decent accelerated 3D for Windows Guests.

With that said some AntiCheat's actively look for and consider VM's to be a bannable offense and if a specific Game's AntiCheat doesn't today it doesn't mean it wont tomorrow.

[CosmicEmotion]

8 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

I can’t be bothered to start a new thread. 
About once a year I give Linux a go. I think the problem I’ve had in the past is that I try to “cold turkey” Windows. I’ll be making the swap in the next day or two. 

In order to not go cold turkey and still be able to play games with anti cheat that don’t work on Linux, or DCS which uses a joystick and throttle that the control software won’t work on Linux, or VR gaming.

I want Linux to be my primary OS. Anything that doesn’t work on Linux will be done on Windows. I do record games and stream. I’ve found ways to seemingly get that to work on Linux. 

Am I better off with dual booting or running a Windows VM inside Linux? compute power and CPU cores aren’t an issue. 

 

Dual Booting is the best option. Games like Val don't work in VMs. Gamign and streaming is as straightforward in Linux as it is on Windows.

[goatedpenguin]

1 hour ago, CosmicEmotion said:

Games like Val don't work in VMs.

Unless you do it in a vm in a vm which also requires a special parameters for qemu.

[IkeaGnome]

Dual boot it is. I didn’t think about some anti cheats just banning for VM usage. 
 

Doing some digging, most of the games I do play are “Gold” or higher on Linux. I think I can get away with pretty much switching everything except DCS and VR games over. 
 

I do know that DCS doesn’t ban for VM but I think it makes more sense to go with dual booting so there’s no mishaps in the future. 
 

Thanks for the insight all. I’ve got to run into Anchorage today so I’m going to pick up another M.2 to also clean up my storage solution while I’m at it. 

[10leej]

Because Windows and MacOS are installed by default.

[The Hope]

Linux is becoming more popular on the desktop in India and China.

 

India: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/india#monthly-201412-202312

 

In China it will replace windows on 30 million government PC's.

 

Linux is also rising in general on desktops:

https://www.networkworld.com/article/1312235/linux-hits-4-desktop-user-share.html

 

windows and macOS are pre-installed on most devices, which is the main reason Linux is not more popular.

 

What I find especially bizarre is that Linux is not more popular on the desktops that enterprises use.

For many functions it is crucial to be able to guarantee data privacy.

But this is not possible on windows systems, since the source code of windows systems cannot be audited by security experts.

And large companies can save millions by switching to a free OS & free software on their desktop systems.

[Dat Guy]

3 hours ago, The Hope said:

Linux is also rising in general on desktops:

https://www.networkworld.com/article/1312235/linux-hits-4-desktop-user-share.html

 

Only 40 years left until it will have reached a relevant share, I guess.

 

3 hours ago, The Hope said:

For many functions it is crucial to be able to guarantee data privacy.

 

Which Linux can't, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, unlike actually free operating systems like OpenBSD, most Linux distributions come with a non-free kernel, including non-free firmware. (That's why the linux-libre kernel exists, but no enterprise distribution would ever support that. Those enterprise guys love their proprietary stuff.)

 

3 hours ago, The Hope said:

the source code of windows systems cannot be audited by security experts.

 

Every year, Microsoft pays large sums of money to (external) security experts to do just that: thoroughly check the source code of Windows and some applications. Who exactly checks the source code of the proprietary parts of Linux for security?

[CosmicEmotion]

8 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

 

Only 40 years left until it will have reached a relevant share, I guess.

 

 

Which Linux can't, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, unlike actually free operating systems like OpenBSD, most Linux distributions come with a non-free kernel, including non-free firmware. (That's why the linux-libre kernel exists, but no enterprise distribution would ever support that. Those enterprise guys love their proprietary stuff.)

 

 

Every year, Microsoft pays large sums of money to (external) security experts to do just that: thoroughly check the source code of Windows and some applications. Who exactly checks the source code of the proprietary parts of Linux for security?

Are you implying that Windows is more secure than Linux? Cause that's hilarious. Can you mention some proprietary stuff that is not able to be checked on Linux?

 

You're forgetting that Microsoft is just one company that checks their own stuff. Linux has ALL the companies in the world to do just that. Checkmate.

[Dat Guy]

4 minutes ago, CosmicEmotion said:

Are you implying that Windows is more secure than Linux?

 

I am implying that Linux is not more secure than Windows. That's a different thing.

 

4 minutes ago, CosmicEmotion said:

Can you mention some proprietary stuff that is not able to be checked on Linux?

 

All firmware blobs.

 

4 minutes ago, CosmicEmotion said:

You're forgetting is just one company that checks their own stuff.

 

Again, Microsoft pays various security experts.

 

4 minutes ago, CosmicEmotion said:

Linux has ALL the companies in the world to do just that.

 

Linux has ALL the NSA in its kernel. And Microsoft.

By the way, did you know that the guy who found the xz hole in Linux (OpenBSD, which is an actually secure system, does not have that) is a Microsoft security expert? So, without Microsoft's security guys, Linux would have one more giant security hole. Checkmate, you said?

[CosmicEmotion]

17 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

 

I am implying that Linux is not more secure than Windows. That's a different thing.

 

 

All firmware blobs.

 

 

Again, Microsoft pays various security experts.

 

 

Linux has ALL the NSA in its kernel. And Microsoft.

By the way, did you know that the guy who found the xz hole in Linux (OpenBSD, which is an actually secure system, does not have that) is a Microsoft security expert? So, without Microsoft's security guys, Linux would have one more giant security hole. Checkmate, you said?

 

Exactly my point? Linux has Microsoft, Google and more than  17K other companies (the list is literally never ending) to check the effects of blobs on the kernel. How many employees does 1 company have to check for random drivers for my PS5 controller which works out of the box in Linux?

 

Linux is VASTLY more secure than Windows, there's not even a comparison. It's also much more user friendly.

[Dat Guy]

12 minutes ago, CosmicEmotion said:

Linux is VASTLY more secure than Windows

Name your source.

 

12 minutes ago, CosmicEmotion said:

It's also much more user friendly.

Which part of “Linux”? KDE which simulates Windows (and works just well with actually secure operating systems like OpenBSD) or GNOME which simulates macOS (same)?

[CosmicEmotion]

10 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

Name your source.

 

Which part of “Linux”? KDE which simulates Windows (and works just well with actually secure operating systems like OpenBSD) or GNOME which simulates macOS (same)?

 

You're obviously trolling right?! XD "KDE immitates Windows". How to tell me you've never used Linux without telling me you've never used Linux.

 

You win, Windows is better. I cannot deal with this level of ignorance, truly.

 

Also, I named my source in the previous post, 17K+ companies depend on Linux.

[Dat Guy]

Just now, CosmicEmotion said:

You're obviously trolling right?! XD

I am not.

 

Just now, CosmicEmotion said:

How to tell me you've never used Linux without telling me you've never used Linux.

Something tells me that I used Linux even before your birth. Before KDE was released, that is. (And yes, I used several versions of KDE on several operating systems.)

 

2 minutes ago, CosmicEmotion said:

You win, Windows is better.

I never said it was. Please stop trolling.

 

2 minutes ago, CosmicEmotion said:

17K+ companies depend on Linux.

Windows has a desktop market share of >80%. How many companies might that be?

[CosmicEmotion]

11 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

Windows has a desktop market share of >80%. How many companies might that be?

You mean these companies directly participate and have a stake in the development of Windows? Cause as I said there, still  to this day, are no wireless drivers for the Dual Sense by  Sony. Linux got them in 2021.

 

Stop troling and even worse, spreading misinformation concerning Linux in the 1990s. XD

[Dat Guy]

I know, other companies like Red Hat which ported svchost.exe and named it systemd, also the NSA, have probably contributed more to Linux than Microsoft did. Not sure if that’s a good thing.

 

Anyway, as your way to communicate is hostile trolling by now, I’ll put you on Ignore right after this post. Life is too short to fight against zealot attacks.

[wasab]

7 hours ago, Dat Guy said:

Linux has ALL the NSA in its kernel. And Microsoft.

By the way, did you know that the guy who found the xz hole in Linux (OpenBSD, which is an actually secure system, does not have that) is a Microsoft security expert? So, without Microsoft's security guys, Linux would have one more giant security hole. Checkmate, you said?

You can't argue the fact many of the design choices Microsoft made, especially in its early days allow a literal heaven for black hat hackers.

 

E.g. lack of user access control in windows xp. Allowing attackers to remotely buffer overflow server applications through network sockets and packets, but perhaps most serious is the fact more people are willing to devout the time and resources necceasry to hack you on windows rather than Linux. In the *nix world, the worst thing that can happen in a hack is that webserver/database get compromised which damages mostly a company. Of course you don't want your data leaked on the dark net but your own damage to your data and hardware is minimal.  

 

Hackers who locked up consumer computer and force you to pay a ransom on the other hand... yeah, good luck. 

[Dat Guy]

15 minutes ago, wasab said:

many of the design choices Microsoft made, especially in its early days

 

In Microsoft's early days, there was Altair BASIC, targeting a niche market. In Microsoft's not-so-early days, most of "their" software was basically other people's software with a Microsoft logo stamped upon it. Microsoft's first actual design choices were made together with IBM (OS/2), later DEC (Windows NT).

I don't like most Microsoft products either, but that's not because of their "design choices".

 

15 minutes ago, wasab said:

lack of user access control in windows xp.

 

The XP (= NT = VMS...) kernel allowed fine ACL granularity. Fun fact: NT - including Windows 11 - even has a flag for case sensitivity, to be enabled on the command line (per folder, if you wish). The problem with Windows XP was that Microsoft could not simply tell its corporate customers (= those with the biggest budget): here, new system, please do everything from scratch. Windows XP had to satisfy both Windows Me AND Windows NT customers OOTB. So they agreed on the lowest common denominator. You could always configure the shit out of Windows NT's sophisticated kernel - if you're fine with breaking backwards compatibility. And ironically, unlike Linux users, Windows users usually are not.

 

I mean, breaking 16-bit support was a big thing when 64-bit Windows became the only supported Windows OS. You couldn't imagine today's enterprise environments in your wildest dreams... I could tell you stories, but I won't.

 

15 minutes ago, wasab said:

In the *nix world, the worst thing that can happen in a hack is that webserver/database get compromised which damages mostly a company.

 

IF you use sane privilege separation, like OpenBSD does by default. Most Linux distributions don't, because that would break certain lazy workflows. You could also privilege-separate Windows. Most people don't, because that would break certain lazy workflows. Same reason. Same effect.

 

systemd runs as PID 1. Are you aware of the implications of a monolithic software running as PID 1?

[wasab]

2 hours ago, Dat Guy said:

IF you use sane privilege separation, like OpenBSD does by default. Most Linux distributions don't, because that would break certain lazy workflows. You could also privilege-separate Windows. Most people don't, because that would break certain lazy workflows. Same reason. Same effect.

what sane privilege seperation are you talking about? if you want military grade UAC, there is SELinux which unironically is developed by the American NSA. it is about as spy proof as it gets. it isn't necessary a bad thing who created what. tor network was developed by the American military as well. 

 

2 hours ago, Dat Guy said:

systemd runs as PID 1. Are you aware of the implications of a monolithic software running as PID 1?

wait, I am confused. doesn't all init system run as PID 1? you mean SysV on bsd doesn't? 

oh I see what you mean. no sysv or systemd on bsd

[Dat Guy]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

if you want military grade UAC, there is SELinux which unironically is developed by the American NSA.

 

11 years after Snowden's publications, people unironically want the NSA to be responsible for their computers again? Why?

SELinux doesn't seem to be too great anyway: https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/selinux-unmanageable.html

 

So, what I mean ...

 

5 minutes ago, wasab said:

what sane privilege seperation are you talking about?

 

... is not that you could enable certain kernel security features (which OpenBSD does out of the box, by the way), but having most critical services run in a chrooted environment with restricted syscall access by default. Linux does not do that.

 

7 minutes ago, wasab said:

doesn't all init system run as PID 1?

 

Which other init system has grown to absorb a third of your system's core services? The word I should probably have highlighted is "monolithic".

You did not answer my question: Are you aware of the implications?

[wasab]

8 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

 

11 years after Snowden's publications, people unironically want the NSA to be responsible for their computers again? Why?

This is like saying you shouldn't hire a former black hat hackers who did his time and offer you his services for legal pay to be your security consultant. 

 

8 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

 but having most critical services run in a chrooted environment with restricted syscall access by default. Linux does not do that.

Again, I have to ask you to be more specific. What exactly?

 

8 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

Which other init system has grown to absorb a third of your system's core services? The word I should probably have highlighted is "monolithic".

You did not answer my question: Are you aware of the implications?

I don't see anything wrong with a program whose only job is to reap orphan process and start all your other services. I mean, isn't that also a boot loader more or less? People have issues with systemd but not init system in general. How does bsd does its init differently? 

[Dat Guy]

Just now, wasab said:

This is like saying you shouldn't hire a former black hat hackers who did his time and offer you his services for legal pay to be your security consultant.

 

You shouldn't hire a company whose entire livelihood is still black hat hacking. Unless the company works for you. Question: Does the NSA work for you?

 

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

What exactly?

 

Having most critical services run in a chrooted environment with restricted syscall access by default.

 

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

I don't see anything wrong with a program whose only jon is to reaps orphan process and start all your other services.

 

Neither do I. And now please check what systemd does. While it started as a orphan process reaper and service starter (...), largely inspired by Solaris's SMF, it has grown quite a lot. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Ancillary_components

Please do not assume that any of these extra components are free to choose.

[wasab]

1 minute ago, Dat Guy said:

Please do not assume that any of these extra components are free to choose.

But like it is? You arent force to run systemd on linux