I've tried out Linux as a Desktop OS pretty consistently every 2-3 years for about 20 years on various Desktop and Laptop computers. I use Linux on a daily basis as a Security analyst, so while I'm not as good as many, I am far better off than the average computer user (I was offered a gig as an intermediate Linux admin once but passed it up to remain in security).

Every time I try it, I end up fixing a bunch of minor and sometimes major problems that take an amount of effort significantly higher than it would to just get things working on MacOS or Windows.

I have seen notable progress every time I try it though. In fact, my latest attempt is mostly an exception to my experience of all of the other times I've tried it.

I have only been running Linux Mint for about 3 weeks, but so far I only have two issues. One of them is significant, and the other one isn't really that big of a deal.

The significant issue is that my Gigabit Ethernet seems much slower than it was on Window when I attempt to download large files. However, my Wireless AC seems to be fine so its not the end of the world.

The minor issue is that Steam refuses to launch most games on my primary monitor the first time I open them. Even after opening and configuring the games individually, some of them still refuse to run on the correct monitor unless I set the resolution to something lower than the Monitor's native resolution. This happens both for games that are native to Linux and games that are running with Proton.

I think this time around the downsides are outweighed by the benefits of running Linux as a primary OS, so I am planning on sticking with it for a long time, but either of these issues would be a valid deal breaker for any reasonable person.

Your post seems to imply that its a myth that Linux doesn't deliver a near perfect desktop experience. If you haven't had any problems that's great. I'm sure a ton of people have no issues or almost no issues. A great desktop OS should serve all common use cases with virtually no issues that require a non-layman's level of technical knowledge to fix. Based on my experience with MacOS, Windows, and Linux, none of them are perfect, but the latter has the most work to do to meet that standard.

> I've tried out Linux as a Desktop OS pretty consistently every 2-3 years for about 20 years on various Desktop and Laptop computers

Well, I have used Linux as a desktop OS consistently since 22 years now. I started with Thinkpads and they did work well for me, and that's what defines my expectations today - that a laptop works without glitch. And the last two laptops I god were supplied by the respective organizations IT department, so they took care that it works.

On the other hand, I am kinda stuck with an Thinkpad X220 because I like the size, the matte display, the great keyboard, and to read my email or work on something in the train, I absolutely do not need more power than it has.

The key for all that is to buy compatible hardware, and research it before spending the money, not after.

I'm not saying its bad or that you can't have a good experience with it, but we should take the "Linux as a Desktop" idea in the proper context. When people bring this idea up again and again, they are usually claiming that Linux is ready to replace Mainstream Desktop OS's for average people. So it usually falls short of that standard because there are only a handful of vendors selling vetted Linux Hardware, only two of them are household names, and the average person cannot be expected to research which GPU Models, NIC Chipsets, etc, are going to work with a Linux install.

The X220 was an amazing machine. I've had a couple of Thinkpad T series over the years and they were my favorite laptops. The keyboards were great.

I'm hoping the trend of more vendors selling Linux laptops will continue. I think there's a good chance that large companies supporting the OS will lead to a more maintenance free / a more stable experience for a wider range of use cases.

I don't dislike Linux. I simply wish it worked better for my purposes. IMO the best OS would have Windows' Mouse drivers and gaming support, MacOS early-mid 2010's Workflow/UI and touchpad drivers, and Linux's everything else. I work with all 3 major OSs on a daily basis and there are things that each of them does better than the others. Interestingly, the thing I find to be poorly implemented on all 3 is Multi-Monitor support.

I think Linux itself is ready to go mainstream, but it's not going to work until enough laptop vendors start selling with Linux pre-installed, and with the issues worked out already.

I mean, I've run into all kinds of issues trying to install Windows as well, including digging through random vendors' websites looking for drivers. But most people's experience is fine, because the laptop vendor provided all of that out-of-the-box.

You wish. There's tons of edge cases that make it into a difficult experience. Recently observed a guy plugging his Linux laptop into an external screen to act as a projector during a meeting. That did not go well. I think primarily due to the external screen being HiDPI.

I've seen people still have that same issue with both Windows and macOS.

This is especially true for "major" distributions (e.g. Fedora, Ubuntu) that tend to have lots of driver support in the distribution on Dell XPS and Lenovo Thinkpad hardware.

By running more-commonly-used software on more-commonly-used hardware, you're more likely to find that someone has built in the driver support you need into the OS.

I've run Ubuntu, Fedora, and Manjaro on various Thinkpads and XPSs and it's always Just Worked. I also have Ubuntu running on an old (2012?) macintosh air and that also Just Works.

Yeah...I have a circa 2008 Thinkpad R500 that I got when I lucked into some WiMax testing/beta thing in my city back then.

It's currently running Mint and lives behind my TV as a basic media player/streaming PC. It's about as fast as you'd imagine given its age, but networking is fine, it can output 1920x1080 and stereo sound out of the HDMI port, and it does just fine with both the bluetooth keyboard and Logitech MX Master mouse (via their proprietary little USB receiver).

None of that stuff needed any weird setup or hoop-jumping. All of the tweaking I did was just UI stuff--finding a balance between performance and making it pretty/intuitive enough for others in the house to use it without headaches.

Honestly I just don't think that's true, every laptop I've had I've tried to put Linux on and it's always been a nightmare. My current one is running Ubuntu but Wifi constantly breaks unless I do a stupid hack with the airplane button, power support is weird and flaky, etc. etc.

Yup. For my main machine, I've never had a Linux laptop last more than six months without a problem that required reinstalling the os (wouldn't boot, wouldn't connect to display etc.). I had a laptop used mostly for web browsing that lasted a bit over a year back around 2006. I try it every few years but it always fails. It's especially a bad idea on Apple hardware. I'll check back in a few years but don't expect much.

Don't forget the new uninformed stick to beat jvm langs with: they're hard to deploy unlike new languages where I upload a single binary.

Linux on the desktop "works" today just like it did twenty years ago -- painfully and with a lot of work to work around the operating system's inability to be a desktop OS.

Same thing with Java. Sure, it's not as slow as it was 20 years ago, but it's still slow and painful in comparison to compiled languages.

I've used Linux actively for 30 years or more, and I've never had a "great experience" once with it. It's a tool that I have to beat into submission to get it to do whatever ridiculous workflow someone dreamed up that can't be done on a real operating system.

> I've used Linux actively for 30 years or more

"The Linux kernel was conceived and created in 1991"

29, whatever. When you've been doing this as long as I have the years run together.

> it's still slow and painful in comparison to compiled languages

Something tells me your opinion about Java is stronger than your experience. Java IS a compiled language. It just happens at runtime. https://www.oracle.com/technical-resources/articles/java/arc...

I see this as yet another example of people here repeating a severely outdated statements about the JVM ecosystem.

Sure. Of course Oracle wants you to believe that Java is faster than C.

Java has been broadly used in HPC and low-latency trading software for years now. That's not only because much more attractive time-to-market but also because in many cases Java is on par with c/cpp when it comes to performance. Sometimes even better.

I'm under the impression that you are not interested in educating yourself on the topic, however if I'm mistaken, have a look at some reasons why Java can be as fast or faster than c/cpp:

- TLAB (thread-local allocation buffer)

- Escape analysis

- Mono- and bi-morphic callsite optimizations

- JIT in general (dead code elimination, implicit null checks, CHA-based optimizations, etc).

Also, you don't have to use Oracle JVMs. There's IBM's J9, OpenJDK-based Zulu, or commercial JVM from Azul (Zing).

I've used Java in the enterprise plenty. Not a fan. And no, it's really never faster than properly written C/C++.

And no, the actual HFT stuff is written in C++.

> And no, the actual HFT stuff is written in C++

This is how I know you have no idea what you're talking about.

Source: been working on low-latency HFT Java apps for shops like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS and others for 10+ years.

Not going to reply any more. Not worth it.

Of course you have.

Not worth it, indeed.