2013: The Year You Switch To Linux?

No thanks. i'll just stick with Windows 7. If I have to upgrade, i.e. buy a new laptop w/ windows 8 on it, I will just install one of the many "start menu bringer-backer apps" and move on with life.
 
I would switch in a heartbeat if I could do my gaming on Linux. VM with IOMMUD'd CPU, GPU, and peripherals would be pretty sweet, too. It's already done in the enterprise (OnLive and such), why not on the desktop :(
 
I would switch in a heartbeat if I could do my gaming on Linux. VM with IOMMUD'd CPU, GPU, and peripherals would be pretty sweet, too. It's already done in the enterprise (OnLive and such), why not on the desktop :(

It would make developers' lives exponentially easier.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/02/pc-game-compatibility-and-design-challenges/

If the Steambox is packing some modern PC hardware at competitive prices then you wouldn't have to bother with VMs and OnLive. It would be nice if they released a new Steambox every 2-3 years, that way you can still take advantage of modern hardware while compatibility would only be slightly more of a hindrance. I just think it's silly to spend $2000 on a gaming PC that's only capable of spitting out the same frame rates of a $400 box due to the $400 box getting all the developer's TLC while the $2000 is ignored and underutilized.
 
Linux 2013 is the same as Linux 2012-2011-2010...2005. A good OS for a specific task (a NAS server or a firewall) but as a main desktop OS it just isn't practical for the masses.
 
Every year its the same story. Every year its wrong.

I use Linux at work, at home I use Windows. I dont see that changing any time soon.
 
If Valve gets CS:GO and DOTA2 up and running in a timely fashion and it isn't plagued with mouse accell issues, I'd easily jump ship to the latest Ubuntu/MINT distro.
 
It would make developers' lives exponentially easier.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/02/pc-game-compatibility-and-design-challenges/

If the Steambox is packing some modern PC hardware at competitive prices then you wouldn't have to bother with VMs and OnLive. It would be nice if they released a new Steambox every 2-3 years, that way you can still take advantage of modern hardware while compatibility would only be slightly more of a hindrance. I just think it's silly to spend $2000 on a gaming PC that's only capable of spitting out the same frame rates of a $400 box due to the $400 box getting all the developer's TLC while the $2000 is ignored and underutilized.

Hm, I don't know. Local VM could be very competitive. Maybe the business case for both isn't there.

2000 down to 400 could easily represent entirely different markets. No one is stopping you from picking that 400 device instead of 2000 build/product with more stuff that you may or may not need/want.
 
2000 down to 400 could easily represent entirely different markets. No one is stopping you from picking that 400 device instead of 2000 build/product with more stuff that you may or may not need/want.

No, that's not what I meant. I meant that a much cheaper device with less powerful hardware would be (and sometimes is) more powerful than your much more expensive gaming rig due to hardware optimization by developers (ISAs, architectural quirks, etc.).

We're in an era of computing where a game developer spending an extra week on porting over a game to the PC would net more benefits than AMD or Intel spending millions upon millions of dollars and a year of extra work on their CPUs.

You can have the greatest hardware in the world in your PC but if the software doesn't see it as such then you've only got an expensive box that's overworking itself or doing a whole lot of nothin'
 
This is wishful thinking at best.
Even with as "easy" as some Linux distros are at this point, at least from the GUI, it is still far above the average user's head.

Linux has a high learning curve.
This is why the masses need simple to use OSes like OS X and Windows, at least from the GUI standpoint; we won't go into CLI-anything.
 
CinnaMint was pretty much a stupid-proof install, came with everything I need in the way of productivity and communication and really just worked totally without any effort on my part. It burns CDs, gets on the web, is a lot more efficient than any recent version of Windows...blah, blah, blah...

That said, I seriously doubt that it will ever be anything more than a backend OS that runs a bunch of devices average people never see (servers, routers, supercomputers, etc) or gets hidden so deep inside an appliance's UI that you can't tell what it is (Android). I luffs Linux and will always have it installed on at least one computer (two right now ^^) but even with Windows 8 being a huge change that people don't understand yet, touted by the most annoying champions who honestly believe that tablets aren't a fad, I just don't see anything else but a Microsoft product being a mainstream OS except maybe OS X...but even that has a long way to go.
 
Switched to Linux as my default OS a few years ago. All the complants mentioned here about Linux I can say the same about windows. Each new version changes existing UI, names of common items (settings etc). The Windows 8 UI is a mess, doesn't support multiple desktops (even OSX does), does finally include support for multiple taskbars (for multimonitor setups).

Learning curve for Ubuntu is pretty smooth these days, put it on a laptop for one of my band mates (he'd never even heard of it previously) and a year later he's still happy with it, found installing/finding software far simpler than Windows.
 
Make your fonts not look like absolute dogshit and maybe I'll use it.
 
That article was a waste of time reading. That writer is an idiot.
 
No, I highly doubt that people will switch to Linux because of Windows 8. I've used Ubuntu, Mint and OpenSUSE, and while they have come a long way to make it more user friendly, it still takes more steps to get software installed and is much, MUCH harder to find software for your Linux build. Yes, Ubuntu has their own little software store similar to Android market and so forth, but they don't all work.

The market that Windows has, Linux won't be able to get much of a hold onto it.

Really?

All I do is type pacman -S <program name> and the operating system automatically downloads and installs the package and all dependencies. It also has the ability to keep all of my programs up to date using a single tool. With Windows, you have to hunt for the exes, download them, manually run the setup program and deal with each programs own way of keeping itself up to date.

apt-get install anyfungameandworkproperlyplease!

that would be a more apples to apples comparison.

Use Wine. At this point, it is basically just run setup.exe and then run the program.

Companies aren't going to officially support linux, why bother it cost money and 90% of people already have windows and the other 9.2% use mac or w.e. Pretty sure linux wont be viable till all the distros become more unified esp when it comes to installing software for laymen, which will never happen.

Which is why competent programs write their software using open standards and design their software for portability. Good code is easier, and cheaper, to maintain. It is a shame what passes for "programming talent" these days.

Try installing Linux on a laptop. Bonus points if you can get wireless working.

On my current laptop, I just went through the normal Arch install process. It came, out of the box, with all necessary drivers (including wireless), something that even Windows doesn't have. Unlike Windows, I did not have to hunt down and manually download a bunch of drivers and I didn't have to grab network drivers on another computer and throw them on a USB key because GNU/Linux supports almost every NIC in existence out of the box.

Forget ease of use and software support, what these Linux distros really need is a catchy name that doesn't make you sound like a dweeb when talking about it in public.
Seriously what the hell is an OOBUNTOO?
Who is Debian?
Fedora? Aren't hipsters all over those?
What does this have to do with Mints?
BSD? You mean like 50 shades of grey right?
:p

BSD is not GNU/Linux. It is a completely different operating system.

This says it all. It's been the "Year of Linux" long enough to say that Linux isn't going to replace Windows or OSX anytime soon, especially with the ubiquitous dependence on Office and the fact that absolutely none of the open-source "replacements" (OpenOffice, LibreOffice, etc) are very compatible with Office files, or for each others' files for that matter.

All the more reason to stop using proprietary and non-standard (no, bribing the ISO does not make a standard) formats. People learned a long time ago to use open file formats when sending files to me (I reject any e-mail that uses a proprietary document format).
 
On my current laptop, I just went through the normal Arch install process. It came, out of the box, with all necessary drivers (including wireless), something that even Windows doesn't have. Unlike Windows, I did not have to hunt down and manually download a bunch of drivers and I didn't have to grab network drivers on another computer and throw them on a USB key because GNU/Linux supports almost every NIC in existence out of the box.

I've installed Windows 8 on a lot of machines, it does a very good job of installing at least drivers to get everything up and running. There's so many more drivers for Windows that managing all of that through a central repository would be a huge task with manufactures having some many variants and recommended drivers for their wares. The kinds of things it has problems with wouldn't be better in Linux like accelerometer drivers for older tablets. One thing that's very cool is that Windows 8 picks up my network printer when it joins my HomeGroup, never had to install a printer driver though it doesn't install the driver for the scanner automatically.
 
I've installed Windows 8 on a lot of machines, it does a very good job of installing at least drivers to get everything up and running. There's so many more drivers for Windows that managing all of that through a central repository would be a huge task with manufactures having some many variants and recommended drivers for their wares. The kinds of things it has problems with wouldn't be better in Linux like accelerometer drivers for older tablets. One thing that's very cool is that Windows 8 picks up my network printer when it joins my HomeGroup, never had to install a printer driver though it doesn't install the driver for the scanner automatically.

We have more drivers than Windows does. There are all kinds of drivers for hardware regular and esoteric.











 
All the more reason to stop using proprietary and non-standard (no, bribing the ISO does not make a standard) formats. People learned a long time ago to use open file formats when sending files to me (I reject any e-mail that uses a proprietary document format).
Except for the fact that a refusal to use standards means that nothing ever works between two similar programs.
 
We have more drivers than Windows does. There are all kinds of drivers for hardware regular and esoteric.

All I am saying is that any piece of hardware that's designed to plug into a PC is going to have an Windows driver provided by the hardware manufacturer. That's just not the case with Linux across the board.
 
No because it's more of a PITA to use. When I use computers I want to spend as little time as possible dancing around with the OS because I have more important things to do. With Windows whatever, outside of a few drivers and the rare needing of some .net library it's hassle free so I can get on with other things.

If Linux meets these 3 critieria i'd switch to it permanantly:
1. Support from key software makers. Out of the box propriety of not software. I want Photoshop not cutrate GIMP crap that sort of works. 100% compatibility with everything I wanted to do and proper full featured profesional quality software for each of those activities.
2. Be less of a PITA. A perfect OS is one you have to do the least amount of work with in order to get stuff done. This is something MS forgot with 8 and turned it into a stupid tile game. I want to spend 99.999% of my time doing what I want to, not babysitting shizzle. Or having to go dredge up libraries because the shoeless guy who made it lives in a tree and thinks whatever is morally wrong because the people that made it don't have beards and don't do everything for free. I can do things, and have no problem with it, but, I don't want to have to be doing them.
3. Performance gains. I'd also want modern games to work. Not Valves ancient ID tech -2 DX8 engine thing from before the current set of consoles, modern games.
4. Support for all my hardware, especially a perfectly working ASIO drivers, Wacom drivers, Instrument controllers etc. including all the features and stuff that makes things easier.
5. Stability.

1 and 2 are probably never going to happen, so you know. Until those things happen there is no gain for me. Doing lots of extra work is a negative and not worth the effort if the end product gains nothing.
 
No because it's more of a PITA to use. When I use computers I want to spend as little time as possible dancing around with the OS because I have more important things to do. With Windows whatever, outside of a few drivers and the rare needing of some .net library it's hassle free so I can get on with other things.

If Linux meets these 3 critieria i'd switch to it permanantly:
1. Support from key software makers. Out of the box propriety of not software. I want Photoshop not cutrate GIMP crap that sort of works. 100% compatibility with everything I wanted to do and proper full featured profesional quality software for each of those activities.
2. Be less of a PITA. A perfect OS is one you have to do the least amount of work with in order to get stuff done. This is something MS forgot with 8 and turned it into a stupid tile game. I want to spend 99.999% of my time doing what I want to, not babysitting shizzle. Or having to go dredge up libraries because the shoeless guy who made it lives in a tree and thinks whatever is morally wrong because the people that made it don't have beards and don't do everything for free. I can do things, and have no problem with it, but, I don't want to have to be doing them.
3. Performance gains. I'd also want modern games to work. Not Valves ancient ID tech -2 DX8 engine thing from before the current set of consoles, modern games.
4. Support for all my hardware, especially a perfectly working ASIO drivers, Wacom drivers, Instrument controllers etc. including all the features and stuff that makes things easier.
5. Stability.

1 and 2 are probably never going to happen, so you know. Until those things happen there is no gain for me. Doing lots of extra work is a negative and not worth the effort if the end product gains nothing.
 
Linux as my main OS wouldnt work.

Im too dependent on certain apps that are windows only.

Some of the linux alternatives wont cut it...then theres the issue with my games =\

I'll dual boot again sooner or later tho....
 
2. Be less of a PITA. A perfect OS is one you have to do the least amount of work with in order to get stuff done. This is something MS forgot with 8 and turned it into a stupid tile game. I want to spend 99.999% of my time doing what I want to, not babysitting shizzle. Or having to go dredge up libraries because the shoeless guy who made it lives in a tree and thinks whatever is morally wrong because the people that made it don't have beards and don't do everything for free. I can do things, and have no problem with it, but, I don't want to have to be doing them.

Have you used Windows 8? It works no different than Windows 7. Just that Metro UI replaces your Start Menu. Unless your computing habits include using the Start Menu for hours at a time, I don't see any problems with Windows 8.

I don't use my Metro UI or Start Menu everyday. The times I do use it, it's for a couple seconds. It's not enough for me to care about the overall layout.
 
Or having to go dredge up libraries because the shoeless guy who made it lives in a tree and thinks whatever is morally wrong because the people that made it don't have beards and don't do everything for free.
To be fair, Stallman lives in a camper van, not a tree. I wholly agree with you though; the biggest issue I have with Linux is that not everything works right out of the box, so to speak. Last time I seriously tried Linux, I had to do some extensive digging to find drivers for my wireless card (Rosewill 802.11n dipole PCIe x1 etc etc) and quickly found out that Linux forums are less than helpful.

That's another major reason why Linux will never catch on with the average user: the extremely high learning curve. Sure, if all you want to do is browse a couple websites, it's just fine. However, if you want to do anything beyond that, it takes a lot of effort. If you can't tell a kernel from a colonel - and most regular users can't - much less how to compile one, you're not going to be able to do much in Linux past "open Firefox" and "shut down computer".
 
All I am saying is that any piece of hardware that's designed to plug into a PC is going to have an Windows driver provided by the hardware manufacturer. That's just not the case with Linux across the board.

Where can I download a driver for the YMF262 that works with Windows 7 x64?

No operating system supports every piece of hardware.
 
Things often get overly complicated with Linux. With that said, I would always prefer Linux for any server. Things tend to work out better when all the hardware is put together first (before installing the os). Provided that all the hardware is Linux compatible. I don't know that I would ever go 100% Linux. I think there can be a healthy mix of os's. It all comes down to maintaining a certain level of control over whatever is used and what is better suited to provide what is needed. There is an appropriate place for all of it.

I would have a Mac somewhere in the mix, but you don't build Macs....you buy them.
 
No because it's more of a PITA to use. When I use computers I want to spend as little time as possible dancing around with the OS because I have more important things to do. With Windows whatever, outside of a few drivers and the rare needing of some .net library it's hassle free so I can get on with other things.

If Linux meets these 3 critieria i'd switch to it permanantly:
1. Support from key software makers. Out of the box propriety of not software. I want Photoshop not cutrate GIMP crap that sort of works. 100% compatibility with everything I wanted to do and proper full featured profesional quality software for each of those activities.
2. Be less of a PITA. A perfect OS is one you have to do the least amount of work with in order to get stuff done. This is something MS forgot with 8 and turned it into a stupid tile game. I want to spend 99.999% of my time doing what I want to, not babysitting shizzle. Or having to go dredge up libraries because the shoeless guy who made it lives in a tree and thinks whatever is morally wrong because the people that made it don't have beards and don't do everything for free. I can do things, and have no problem with it, but, I don't want to have to be doing them.
3. Performance gains. I'd also want modern games to work. Not Valves ancient ID tech -2 DX8 engine thing from before the current set of consoles, modern games.
4. Support for all my hardware, especially a perfectly working ASIO drivers, Wacom drivers, Instrument controllers etc. including all the features and stuff that makes things easier.
5. Stability.

1 and 2 are probably never going to happen, so you know. Until those things happen there is no gain for me. Doing lots of extra work is a negative and not worth the effort if the end product gains nothing.

Windows doesn't meet those criteria.

1.You are confusing gratis with libre. If one does not wish to release the source code to the software they distribute, they are free to provide their own libraries separate from those on the system. Having all software compiled against the same version of a library has advantages (and avoids the need for inefficiencies such as SxS).

100% compatibility with everything is an impossibility; even Windows has compatibility problems with say, older programs. Run any 16-bit Windows 3.1 programs on your 64-bit Windows recently? (Hint : 64-bit GNU/Linux CAN do this with WINE and it doesn't require a copy of Windows 3.1).

2.PITA is subjective and relative. My computer doesn't do anything I tell it to and it assumes nothing. Windows, on the other hand, tries to assume everything. It assumes that I want a bunch of background services running (even though I don't use most). It assumes that I want "advice" about things like freeing up disk space (I don't). Windows 8 assumes that I want to use Metro (I don't) and it assumes that I would like to log in with a Microsoft account (I don't). It also assumes that I want the disk defragmented automatically. It assumes that I don't need access to system files and fights me every step of the way (trying to replace a corrupted system file when SFC fails is an exercise in frustration). It also locks me out of the hardware (good luck trying to do a low level raw image of your system disk without special drivers).

In addition, Windows requires one to worry about virus scanners, spyware blockers, and of course, the ever corruptible registry (one of the most idiotic programming decisions of all time). And of course, everytime you install a program, you have to worry about it making things run at boot (nothing starts at boot on my system unless I explicitly tell the computer to). Windows also requires a computer reboot for every insignificant update you could ever hope to install (because Microsoft is apparently too incompetent to at least give their own programs a way to bypass System File Protection).

3.The Linux kernel is already faster with superior scheduling algorithms for IO and CPU. And if that isn't fast enough, you are free to apply custom patches such as the CK patchset (this is [H]ardForum, after all. We are supposed to be computer nerds) or the BFS/BFQ schedulers.

The Windows CPU scheduler has an annoying habit of bouncing a thread around multiple cores. This keeps all cores active and prevents turbo boost from reaching its maximum speed unless you assign affinity to the process in question. The Linux Kernel CPU Scheduler, on the other hand, (The default one) makes an effort to keep threads to a single core.

As for game engines, are Unreal Engine 3, Unigine, Unity 4, or Serious Engine 3 modern enough for you?

4.You'll not find a "perfect" ASIO driver for GNU/Linux or, any at all for that matter, (at least natively) because we don't use ASIO for low-latency sound (we use JACK). ASIO was created as a workaround for Windows' horrendous high-latency audio subsystem and isn't needed on other operating systems. It is kind of like asking for a GNU/Linux version of the registry editor. WINE does have ASIO support (mapped to JACK) for running Windows audio applications.

5.The only time most people have stability problems on GNU/Linux is if you run on the bleeding edge, with beta versions of everything (you would be surprised how many people complain about the stability of say, Debian *TESTING*). Basically, use the Long Term/Stable versions of things.
 
Linux is my preferred operating system, philosophically, technically and overall. Now, this does not mean it is without flaws (albeit, many of them are from the "Other people didn't program software or drivers for that OS" field, so it isn't so much a flaw of the OS itself).

The case for linux on embedded, server, and other markets are already strong and it provides a hugely strong, even preferable showing there; the "desktop" is the last frontier. In this way, Linux has become stronger than ever. There are many distributions that are by far the most powerful, secure, private, and easy to use experience for an "average" user; even a "below average" user that only engages in a few tasks.

There is a snowball effect in terms of gaming getting up to momentum, as we can see by more indie titles ever released with Linux clients, Desura and now even Steam Linux clients selling native titles. Thanks to the mobile OSes as well, more things than ever are built with cross platform toolkits (ie OpenGL) so WINE, CrossOver, PlaysOnLinux are updating and thriving better than every. Video drivers are also getting a boost. Gaming is one of the main things holding back full on Linux adoption for many people, so with luck it will continue to become less of an issue.

Linux (except Ubuntu; their fuckup couldn't come at a worse time) as one's primary desktop OS is an integral part of voting for security, privacy, respect for the user's wishes and experience, and pushing back against the walls that have been closing in in recent years - proprietary lock in filth, privacy obliteration and much more. The experience has been getting better, and it will take users demanding Linux support in order to get those that still aren't sure about the platform to get onboard.

Even if you don't personally use Linux at this time and don't see yourself switching, Linux's success means success for things that benefit you, and the vast majority of users.
 
I'm aiming for Win 7 to be my last windows install (not bothering with my donation for "upgrading"), which I'm only keeping for games. Just about everything else I'm using Linux for now.

That being said, I also don't see Linux for the average Joe user, unless somebody comes out with a really accessible version (read: cut down) to make it easier to use.

Funny to think Ms has been working so hard to push their xbox, yet games are the only reason I still have a windows install.
 
Until all games run on linux at equal or greater speed to windows no thanks.
 
Why not? Look at how many people use and like Android which is linux based.

Guaranteed an Android desktop OS would do well.
 
Almost everything people blame linux on is not the fault of the OS.

People think going around the web to download some exe and run through an install wizard is easier than a straight download and automatic install from a repository that can always keep your software up to date?! Is this real life?

No drivers for your device? Manufacturers fault. Your games and software don't work? Developers fault.

People secretly love monopolies, which is why only Microsoft will exist, only Intel will exist, only Samsung will exist, etc... And the barrier of entry will be too high for anyone else to ever step foot in again.

People also completely switch views when talking about Windows vs Linux and then iOS vs Android. You can take every iOS vs Android thread and replace them with Windows and Linux and the same argument will hold. So what makes it so different?
 
Almost everything people blame linux on is not the fault of the OS.

People think going around the web to download some exe and run through an install wizard is easier than a straight download and automatic install from a repository that can always keep your software up to date?! Is this real life?

No drivers for your device? Manufacturers fault. Your games and software don't work? Developers fault.

People secretly love monopolies, which is why only Microsoft will exist, only Intel will exist, only Samsung will exist, etc... And the barrier of entry will be too high for anyone else to ever step foot in again.

People also completely switch views when talking about Windows vs Linux and then iOS vs Android. You can take every iOS vs Android thread and replace them with Windows and Linux and the same argument will hold. So what makes it so different?

There's a lot I like about Linux. There's also a lot I don't like about Linux. I might try it for my main system again. But as a business owner there's no way in hell I'm changing from Windows. If I'm having problems with the OS and there are not drivers or the software doesn't work, then the OS doesn't work for my needs.

I had a conversation with a friend (techno-nerd elite type) who was bashing Windows and said he didn't understand why all businesses just don't dump Windows and go Linux, and that Linux is far far superior in every way. The one thing Linux doesn't even come close to Windows is this though: Support from software vendors. When that changes and ALL of the programs you use WORK *natively* in Linux, then a change can be considered.

Linux does look to be getting there, but it has a long way to go. Maybe in another 10 years...
 
No. Not it the mid 90's or any year in the last two decades. However, I am glad some people like it.
 
Windows doesn't meet those criteria.

100% compatibility with everything is an impossibility; even Windows has compatibility problems with say, older programs. Run any 16-bit Windows 3.1 programs on your 64-bit Windows recently? (Hint : 64-bit GNU/Linux CAN do this with WINE and it doesn't require a copy of Windows 3.1).

It does, as I said "100% compatibility with everything I wanted to do", which means things like Photoshop etc. All of which are fully Windows compatible and can be downloaded and installed with a click or two. None of these programs contain 16bit code. I do have a few old 16bit games which run in Dosbox (which is done automatically by other people, the only 16 bit games I have which weren't I just use VMs). Even then thats another click to launch, not playing around and hoping for the best.

In addition, Windows requires one to worry about virus scanners, spyware blockers, and of course, the ever corruptible registry (one of the most idiotic programming decisions of all time). And of course, everytime you install a program, you have to worry about it making things run at boot (nothing starts at boot on my system unless I explicitly tell the computer to). Windows also requires a computer reboot for every insignificant update you could ever hope to install (because Microsoft is apparently too incompetent to at least give their own programs a way to bypass System File Protection).

I've never seen registry corruption ever, on any Windows OS, and i'm not exactly careful. I poke around in it and edit bit of it all the time for various projects. Only certain software likes to choose to start at boot, but that's programmers fault for abuse of the option. The alternative to this would be to disallow programs to have startup access, which wouldn't be a practical solution. Nor has there been any "infections". Not that those don't happen, but TBH it's not like it's a constant worry.

There is nothing that makes Linux inherantly more secure than Windows, other than no one bothers with it due to the relitively minute userbase. Should the day of the Linux desktop happen (as is happening with OSX now as its gotten slightly more popular) then the same "threats" shall apply. But, as you know Linux is definately not 100% secure, no OS is, and can never hope to be. The best defence against anything of that type is common sense and safe practices.

But, TBH I don't care that it installs TRIM for me with SSDs and defrags the spinning drives and scans when stuff isn't in use and self updates. It means there's less stuff for me to spend time doing so i can spend more time doing other stuff.

3.The Linux kernel is already faster with superior scheduling algorithms for IO and CPU. And if that isn't fast enough, you are free to apply custom patches such as the CK patchset (this is [H]ardForum, after all. We are supposed to be computer nerds) or the BFS/BFQ schedulers.

As for game engines, are Unreal Engine 3, Unigine, Unity 4, or Serious Engine 3 modern enough for you?

It wouldn't matter if Linux was faster, as it can't run those programs without compatability issues or stability issues.

There are several engines with Linux ports, often with features missing, but the games for those engines still don't get released. Can you run BF3 in Linux?

4.You'll not find a "perfect" ASIO driver for GNU/Linux or, any at all for that matter, (at least natively) because we don't use ASIO for low-latency sound (we use JACK).

Thats kind of a problem when the program expects to use ASIO. I wouldn't mind using another simillar replacement, but the programs likely would. Now if there was a suitable drop in replacement, then fine, but as there isn't it's kind of out.

5.The only time most people have stability problems on GNU/Linux is if you run on the bleeding edge, with beta versions of everything (you would be surprised how many people complain about the stability of say, Debian *TESTING*). Basically, use the Long Term/Stable versions of things.

Wasn't so much the stabilty of the OS (though the drivers can be a little...off) but more the software stability (should have expanded on it). Running anything through VMs or compatability layers almost always means theres something that isn't quite going to work, and this often can effect stability or predictability. Then the replacement software can also be very variable. When those kind of things are crucial, they are crucial and not really something you want to mess with.
 
There is an Andriod desktop OS, it doesn't...

There isn't an Android desktop OS but rather Chrome OS and Chromebooks (the OS is essentially a browser).

It isn't just selling, it's sold out.

That's why I was surprised to see the Samsung Chromebook at the top of Amazon's best-sellers list for laptop computers. The folks at Slashdot made the discovery yesterday evening, and sure enough, it checks out. The listed price is $325, not $249, because believe it or not, only a handful of the machines remain in stock through the Amazon Marketplace. If that's not a sign of popularity, I don't know what is.

Does this mean Amazon shoppers are cheapskates going for the most affordable solution? Evidently not, because the number-two best-seller in the category is Apple's 13-inch MacBook Pro. Asking price: $1,115.59. In fourth place is the 13" MacBook Air at $1,124.99. That leaves only two spots in the top five for cheap Windows notebooks.

http://techreport.com/news/24131/249-chromebook-is-amazon-top-selling-laptop

People don't really give a fuck about Windows anymore. Win8 sales figures have been really poor and most folks see no reason to upgrade. And apparently for those that do decide they want a new machine they're quite willing to go with Macbooks and Chromebooks.
 
Back
Top