Personally? No. But as stated, my primary laptop has an integrated GPU. Intel drivers tend to have support in the kernel so everything just works out-of-the-box. It's one of the reasons I tore the Broadcomm wifi card that came with the XPS13 and replaced it with an Intel 7265.

I am not sure whether the parent was using the nouveau drivers or the NVIDIA blobs. It's besides the point either way: GPU's on Linux are notoriously finicky, no matter your stack.

The recommendation to go with an integrated GPU is strictly pragmatic. I personally am a tinkerer and am willing to live with a little bit of pain as far as functionality or configuration for ideological reasons if it means supporting a FOSS distribution. But I can't make that same assumption for the parent's wife, and if she wants something that "just works" because she's unwilling to tolerate that level of pain, then an integrated GPU might be the way to go.

I don't understand how that's your go-to suggestion. It just makes a lot of assumptions, it's anecdotal, and I'm just surprised there's this kind of armchair tech support on HN. And then others go on the forum and read it.

Everybody on the below thread is having a tertiary argument thinking I have something to say about GPUs and their drivers. I could not care less.

Remember the famous video Linus did where he just flipped a middle finger to nvidia because nvidia flipped a middle finger to the entire Linux community? Yeah, the advice is always "don't use nvidia with Linux".

2 things. 1: As a consumer IDGAF. 2: sure as long as we're not saying "your problem is because of a discreet GPU, switch to integrated, so much better!".

Also, You want to lay down all the graphics options when Linus did that and _not_ pick Nvidia? Cool, go play zork. I understand what the situation was, but don't deny who was actually delivering on graphics performance either.

Today however, it's genuinely refreshing to see AMD's driver efforts and overall offering as a company.

But as a consumer, you _do_ give a fuck!

Making the wrong consumer choice here matters, because it can take you from a good, functioning PC to one that works far less effectively.

You're right in that you shouldn't have to give a fuck, that they should all - in support terms - be drop in replacements allowing you to balance up cost vs. performance, but the Linux team have tried awfully hard to make it that way without being able to reach a compromise with GPU producers.

In the meantime, Linux gives you a choice of external GPUs at varying levels of freedom and support. That's more than nvidia gives you.

You're right, I do care. I care first about what works, and the choices available to me. At that time, Nvidia was working at the performance and stability required and nothing else. Today the landscape has changed significantly and there is actual choice. I don't care so much as to lower the bar of what is acceptable.

Nvidia may have had the more powerful video cards, but at least AMD's video cards had functioning drivers for Linux. If you bought an Nvidia card to use on Linux back then, you were paying more for a worse card.

Not sure what rock you lived under: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2934504/why-you-should-avoid-... http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bioshock-...

Again: Today however, it's genuinely refreshing to see AMD's driver efforts and overall offering as a company.

Why are you baffled? It's no secret that Nvidia's linux drivers cause problems and that Intel's tend to be very good.

For the record, I had a really bad time with Nvidia hardware and their drivers on Linux, and the whole Optimus thing that they pushed 5-ish years ago.

Never had a problem with Intel graphics, except that power management (RC6) support in Sandy Bridge chips took a while to mature.

I'm baffled because I had the exact opposite experience and this is really bad advice.

Ubuntu developer here. I favor Intel drivers (for non-gaming) for the reasons given. It's certainly much more straightforward driver-wise. And I can recall a number of bugs that impacted Nvidia only, where one cause was that they have proprietary drivers.

> and this is really bad advice

I think that's a huge stretch. Disagree all you like from your own experience, but I believe that the statement "Intel drivers work more smoothly than the proprietary Nvidia drivers" matches the current consensus.

I don't care. This is bad advice because it's armchair troubleshooting.

Oh you have a problem? Stop doing this thing I don't like.

Yay everyone, we did it.

I don't see what's so baffling about the advice:

Nvidia: run a special process to fetch one of a limited set of binary blobs from a single vendor, shim them into the kernel and cross one's fingers that this combination of binaries will work. Then go through it all again at the next kernel update. Yes, Ubuntu and co. have scripts to do this, but it's all a big hack.

Intel: the drivers' already there, included in the kernel; there's very little to go wrong.

My current system has Intel graphics; if I did end up stuck with nvidia hardware, I'd try the noveau driver, and failing that I'd use vesa. Installing third-party driver binaries isn't worth the hassle.

  Yes, Ubuntu and co. have scripts to do this, but it's all a big hack.

You are beyond reason

I've never seen a GPU stack as stable as NVidia's proprietary drivers, honestly. And I've tried the open source AMD drivers, but the card may have been too old for it.

Same. I'm eager to try some of the new AMD hardware + driver offerings of late. I'm hopeful for them and am considering them for my next GPU rotation (pretty far in the future though since I still have a 970).